Home | About | Donate

Women with Facts Fight Back Against Fracking... and Sexism



"Women, for whatever reason, have not been persuaded by the facts",
Sorry honey, don't worry your pretty little head about this but did it ever occur to you that they have been persuaded by just that, Facts not propaganda?.


More of a case for men as ignorami, wouldn't you say?


A lot of men and women in Québec have fought against all attempts to frack a major area of the province, the one with the biggest farming area. They fought the then government of Québec, the Liberal Party, and heard its woman minister of Fauna and Natural Resources claim that cows emitted more CO2 than shale gas fracking. The fight has been also driven against two male lobbyists with well known and important previous standings: an ex-president of Hydro-Québec (the very powerful government hydroelectricity corporation) and an ex-prime minister, both probably very well paid for lying throught their teeth by the fracking companies, suddenly promoted by the Liberal Party as the sole and much needed future providers of wealth for the province. I can therefore imagine your lobbyist doing the same, going as far as blaming emotion as a reaction for women fighting fracking, a definite show of emotion from Averil Macdonald herself... Fracking has been put on hold throughout the whole province since then. Keep on with the good fight for the environment and the human survival!


As soon as there's a study showing links between fracking chemicals and testosterone (rather than estrogen), then men will suddenly take an interest in the science.


There is a natural carbon cycle: photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and respiration adds it to the atmosphere. Therefore, cows and all other respiring orrganisms do not contribute to global warming because the natural carbon cycle is a steady state (levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do not change).

This is not true of burning fossil fuels because the carbon in fossil fuels is sequestered deep in the earth and is not cycling. When humans burn fossil fuels, this adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that should not be there, thus upsetting the natural carbon cycle and causing the earth to warm.

This is why global warming only became a problem after the Industrial Revolution when humans discoverd they could burn fossil fuels as a source of energy.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


While cows release no more carbon than was present in their feed (which, today, has its own fossil fuel footprint) they can convert the carbon into a much more potent greenhouse gas in the form of methane--which is frequently expressed as CO2 equivalent units per methane unit (34 over a 100 year period, 72 over a 20 year period, and 100 over a five year period)

But fugitive methane appears to be a major component of natural gas production, so the comparison to cows seems rather peculiar, especially given the necessarily arbitrary nature of the conversion units. What would be the cow equivalent units for a million cubic feet of natural gas? One might as well ask how many megabytes it takes to equal a megawatt.