>You see, while Tillerson believes that the inevitable noise pollution that accompanies the fracking process—not to mention the potential for water contamination and other dangerous side-effects even when it is done safely (and some would strenuously argue that it is not possible to frack safely)— is of no real significance when it affects someone else’s neighborhood, he surely thinks it to be a pretty big deal when someone dares to get involved in fracking in Rex Tillerson’s neighborhood.
I'm 99% certain it's about decreased land values, not any possible environmental issues.
Environmental issues include visual and noise pollution of the property and town. There is no clear line between 'pollution' that is bad for your health and 'pollution' that is just there descreasing the value of your land.
> There is no clear line between 'pollution' that is bad for your health and 'pollution' that is just there descreasing the value of your land.
It seems you're commenting solely to split hairs. I think Puer is right.
In Mr. Tillerson's case, it's almost certainly a matter of land value. And probably a little selfishness, i.e. "not in my backyard." Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if his concern was strictly a matter of worth and the dollar value of his property.
> And all the "little people" whose land value is negatively impacted? They don't count?
I don't see where I said this. I'm not even sure what you're arguing with me over.
The point is pretty clear, I think. It has more to do with this individual's greed and probably very little (if any) to do with environmental concerns.
I'm saying that the environment issues A are exactly equivalent to the decrease in land value B. The statement I was disagreeing with was stating that A != B whereas I was thinking that A == B.
But you're correct that in the quote in Puer's comment the article was talking about water contamination and safety issues.
To be clear I believe that Mr Tillerson is acting in a self interested hypocritical manner and I hope that the big fracking companies lose a significant portion of their real profits to compensation if it turns out that people's health or land values have been damaged by their activities.
I'm 99% certain it's about decreased land values, not any possible environmental issues.