Fracking – hydraulic fracturing

Obviously capitalist firms are not going to engage in fracking unless it returns a profit for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in principle with fracking any more than there is with mining in general. In fact, all the arguments against fracking on environmental grounds could also be levelled against mining, but we're not going to take up an anti-mining stance are we? I think we should be wary of jumping on the anti-fracking bandwagon along with the nimbys and those who opposed any new technological advances.(e.g. GM crops too) and continue to argue that scientific and technological advances strengthen the case for socialism and will be properly applied in a socialist society to produce what people need instead of for profit.

This is open to challenge. In one sense they are not required for socialism, but since socialism could have been established anytime in the last hundred or so years in that sense neither are radio, plastics, electronics, antibiotics, TV and all the other technologies developed since 1900. But they make the case for socialism all the more practical and plausible as they re-inforce our argument that society has the capacity to produce plenty for all.Genetically engineered crops (most of the crops we eat have already been "genetically modified", through artificial selection) can surely play an important part in increasing food production (a key objective of socialism in the early days). As to nuclear power, nuclear fission could still be used as a transitional source of energy (that does contribute to global warming) while viable renewable sources of energy are developed while nuclear fusion, when it's properly developed, could become an important source of energy. And we could still use coal and oil, if not to burn for energy, as raw materials for plastics.Socialists always used to be technological optimists not back-to-nature technophobes.

Our argument for socialism is not one based on new potential technological developments as you say, as helpful as they may be, but on the rational production and planning of existing technologies. We have no need of Star Trek replicators. Food production already can produce abundance for all to eat and satisfy an even a bigger population  at current production levels. The purpose of GM is not to increase production but to make agriculture more profitable (and even then it is a short term fix) for business. GMO is an irrelevancy to food supply just as Spanish tasteless strawberries naturally selectively bred for longer shelf life hopefully does not  reflect food choice in socialism. GMO is a distraction from worthwhile research into new methods of produucing our food because it offers certain large corporations large profits.A similar argument is made against the pharmaeutical industry. R and D is devoted to the money making medicines not the orphan drugs or to the even more basic life-safer prevention though public health. Existing nuclear power may serve as a temporary stop-gap, after all i think the French is almost totally reliant on it and it is one reason they have a total ban on fracking.  But saying that and accepting that socialism would gradually dismantle the nuclear power stations just as a number of capitalist countries have chosen to do, is in no way endorsing it as a viable desirable energy source and suggesting more.  I do know some environmentalists like Monbiot present the case for more nuclear energy in preference to the dirtier co2 producing ones, so i guess there is reason to debate it. But as i indicated in my previous post, as long as the old energy systems remain the most profitable, there will be little development in renewals and clean alternatives. It is not our job to advise the capitalist class on their best long term interests but nor is it our job to give them a sympathetic hearing for their short term predatory practices. The more we demonstrate that the energy and farming  policies of the ruling class will always be based foremost on profit, perhaps we can get the message across that the future choice of workers is indeed going to be socialism or barbarism.  

But you are talking about this under capitalism. Of course the aim is not to increase food production to feed more people. It's to make profits. Of course the agro-corporations (and the frackers) want minimal regulation as stringent regulation would increase their costs and reduce their profirs.But I was talking about the completely different situation that will apply in socialism. Then, the aim really will be to grow better food in places where it can't be grown easily today. It really will be to feed the world. And research into genetically engineering crops to allow them to grow faster or over a wider area will be useful. In fact I would have thought that agronomists would be keen to carry out such research, to improve the lot of humanity instead of, as today, to open up profit prospects for some capitalist corporation.As to fracking, the motive for introducing it today is to make a profit. I agree, though, that given other possible sources of energy, it might not be necessary in socialism, but I don't see why it should be ruled out on principle. I don't see why there couldn't be safe (stringently regulated) fracking for use not profit in socialism if need be.

This is the claim made on the Grasland site but they are not neutral in this matter, if only because they want to sell their film. Their FAQ answers:

In other words, not all oil and gas wells leak and contaminate the water table. Why don't those that don't? I concede that this will probably be due to geology rather than technology, but it shows that not all fracking is harmful in this sense.Note also that this applies to oil as well as gas and would be an argument against drilling for oil too. Maybe it is, but why single out fracking for shale gas for attack in emotive terms? Why not call also for a ban on oil wells? Under capitalism the nuclear industry would love that.To tell the truth I'm not convinced that the technology does not exist to stop leaks. It will exist, but is not being applied because it is too expensive. If fracking were to be needed in socialism, then cost would not be a consideration and it could only be done in suitable geological conditions.I'm not defending fracking under capitalism, just making the point that there is nothing wrong with the technique in itself. It could be useable in socialism if need be as long the proper precautions were taken. We shouldn't attack the technologies themselves, only their likely misuse under the profit system, i.e. not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ah, but plastics are hydrocarbons and oil is their raw material. So we won't be able to do without oil altogether. Otherwise there'd be nothing to put into the 3-D printers some say are going to come into widespread use, quite apart from all the other things that are made from plastics. Using oil to make plastics is a much more intelligent than burning it to generate energy.

The US Department of Defense electricity consumption is slightly less than Denmark.The DoD  average daily oil use is just ahead of Sweden.

---

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military 

---

 This is not including all the energy used in the armament manufacturing industry in the US. Nor the rest of the worlds military forces and arms industries.

---

 But if  nuclear power still operates in socialism, we have all that nuclear warhead high grade uranium available for energy …Highly-enriched uranium in US and Russian weapons and other military stockpiles amounts to about 1500 tonnes, equivalent to about seven times annual world mine production. World stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium are reported to be some 260 tonnes, which if used in mixed oxide fuel in conventional reactors would be equivalent to a little over one year’s world uranium production.