"Focus your operations on oil..."

"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own]." - Osama Bin Laden (quoted by Barack Obama in 2006 in the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment - so could be totally false.)

"We will lay the foundation of our future capacity to meet America's energy needs from America's own resources." -Richard Nixon, 1974

I hate celebrities and their hypocritical, holier-than-thou involvement in politics; let's be honest, actors are paid to recite lines that someone else has written for them and, besides that, they really just shouldn't speak at all.

This rant is being brought to you because of the number of recent celebr-idiots trying to grace us with their oh-so-profound political wisdom. Example numero uno. (Corrected in this video. Seriously, whoever made this is my new hero.)

But I've already ranted about the ridiculousness of anti-gun laws so I won't do that again. (Today.) Here's my rant reason: Matt Freakin' Damon and his new movie, "Environmental Lies that will Lead to the Destruction of our Already Doomed Economy" aka "Promise Land."

Before we can dissect the lies and misinformation in that, let's first define what this evil form of energy is. Hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, is the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers underground. Using 3D imaging that allows scientists to determine the exact area to drill, horizontal drilling allows special fracking fluids to be injected into the shale area. The drilling can take up to a month, after which time the well that's created is cemented (to protect groundwater) and the shale rock is fractured hydraulically, creating channels that allow gas to be extracted quickly and easily.

Sounds awful, doesn't it?

Now, I have no intentions of ever seeing Damon's movie (or any of his movies from now on. He angers me) so I can't say what his exact claims are but I can summarize them like this: "It involves gas so it must hurt the environment! You'll destroy the atmosphere! You'll poison our animals! Go ahead and kill our unborn children, but if you even think about touching one of our trees, we'll get one of our armed bodyguards to come shoot you since you won't be able to defend yourself pretty soon."

That sad thing is, that's not really that far off of some of the real anti-fracking arguments out there.

Argument 1: YouTube clips, mainly from the anti-fracking documentary "Gasland" created in early 2012 by Josh Fox, show people near fracking sites lighting their water on fire and a study done by Duke claims that wells near fracking sites contain 17 times more methane than wells elsewhere.

Response: Josh Fox was interviewed by Phelm McAleer about those clips and admitted that he knew that those areas had flammable water before fracking began there but he didn't include that information in his documentary because "it was not relevant." When McAleer posted this interview on YouTube, Fox immediately hired lawyers who tracked it down and removed it. (On a side note, McAleer's own documentary "FrackNation" premiers on January 22nd. It was funded solely by donations and, in order to keep special interests groups out of it, all donations from gas companies were returned.)

Argument 2: Some people claim fracking will harm our economy because of heavy truck trips (huh?), suggestions that "drill-friendly communities do worse than others in personal income, employment growth, economic diversity, educational attainment and ability to attract investment," and, in New York, where fracking is taking place, will destroy the ever important tourism.

Response: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Seriously, becoming less dependent on foreign resources is going to harm our economy? Harm our economy? At this point, how can our economy be harmed?

That argument is the most illogical that I've found so far. Here are some actual examples. In Pennsylvania, which does use fracking, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry released a report that said that from 2009-2011, 72,000 jobs had been created solely in the fracking industry.

Other countries are actually using the economic success of fracking to encourage their own governments to adopt the practice. One more time: countries want to emulate an American practice because of its economic success. An article written in December 2012 by a journalist in Great Britain points out that, while the cost of natural gas in China is at $12 a unit, in America it has dropped from $8 in 2008 to $3. It's contributed $50 billion in taxes in that time as well.

And that economic success isn't limited to the areas that are being drilled. Take Wisconsin, for instance. Silica sand is used to open the channels in fracking and the largest producer in the nation of this sand is Wisconsin. In November 2012, there were 37 operating mines and 41 more had received permits. As of last August, there were no official employment numbers of the mines, but the industry estimates that it will eventually have approximately 2,780 people working for it.

Argument 3: Fracking harms the environment and all the little birdies and the trees and the squirrels...ahem. It causes earthquakes, asthma, and destroys the ozone layer as well as polluting our air and water.

Response: For four years, Governor Cuomo of New York has been deciding whether or not to allow fracking in certain areas of the state. It's no coincidence that the state hid a report concluded nearly a year ago that deemed fracking an environmentally safe practice. The report was leaked earlier this week  to the New York Times by "an expert who did not believe it should be kept secret." (And the Times, bless their liberal hearts, released this information under the most unappealing and bland headline possible: "Gas Drilling is Called Safe in New York." Can you imagine if it'd been proved otherwise? "Extensive Research Determines Hydrofracking Holds Deadly Environmental Consequences.") 

The 8-page long report says that fracking can be done safely. "It delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found on the ground, on air emissions and on 'potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.'"

As if that weren't enough, estimates suggest that carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. have declined by about 800 tons, or 14%, since 2007, making this the lowest CO2 emissions have been in 20 years. That's because, in the last 5 years, the use of coal for energy has decreased from 45% to 32% while the use of gas for energy has risen from 20% to 32%. That's because 57 million additional energy consumers have been added to the U.S. and they've been using gas. Per capita, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped 20% and are now the lowest they've been since 1961. 

In comparison, the type of clean energy our president BO promotes, are wind, which lowers carbon emission by 1/10th of what fracking does, and solar, which reduce emission by 3 megatons. The shift from coal to gas has reduced carbon emissions by about 400-500 megatons a year.

So there you have it. Fracking = good. Celebr-idiots with big mouths and no brains = bad.

God bless America.