Talisman Terry, the Friendly Fracosaurus, headed for extinction

PITTSBURGH — A natural gas drilling company says it’s no longer distributing a children’s coloring book featuring a hard hat-wearing dinosaur that’s been criticized by a Massachusetts congressman and lampooned by Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert.

Talisman Energy says “Talisman Terry’s Energy Adventure” is no longer being distributed following a barrage of criticism.

Critics called the coloring book’s depiction of land before and after drilling overly rosy. The post-drilling image adds a rainbow and an eagle to the scene where the hydraulic fracturing drilling process took place.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey mocked the depiction of the “friendly Fracosaurus” in remarks last week on drilling safety. Colbert spoofed the book earlier this week.

Spokeswoman Natalie Cox says the coloring book distributed in northeastern Pennsylvania has received more attention than it should have.

28 Comments

  1. almostdallas

    Markey (D-Mass.) is a jerk who will needlessly slam anything dealing with oil and gas just to get a quote. I say we stop sending oil and gas to Mass. and see if they can power their own homes.

    Colbert’s thing was pretty funny, though.

    #1
  2. Spyder

    Fracking needs to be extinct

    #2
  3. Tex

    We have known for a long time that U.S. Rep. Ed Markey is a mad man.

    #3
  4. digobamadig

    The definition of stupidity: The only ink & paper rag in the energy/oil/gas capital of the US insults the industry that pays its bills on a daily basis.

    #4
  5. Maddie

    IMO the hilarious take by Stephen Colbert forced this issue. He showed it for what it was: stupid.

    #5
  6. sluggy

    Looks like ‘Talisman Terry’ is the Joe Camel of the fracking industry…

    #6
  7. Paul

    almostdallas…wow, that’s deep. After all of the problems that have resulted from fracking…and here you are completely ignoring that while you try to marginalize Ed Markey, not by actually refuting anything he said…but by labeling him and dismissing his thoughts against fracking as “NEEDLESSLY (haha) slamming ANYTHING dealing with oil and gas…just to get a quote.” Yeah…I’m sure it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with all of the problems fracking has caused.

    “I say” you, Tex, digobamadig, and everyone else who “supports” fracking so much tell the fracking companies that they can frack in your back yard for your energy source…while “Massachusetts”…along with the rest of the country (and world) go solar, wing, hydrogen, etc.

    *

    Yeah, digobamadig…how “stupid” it is to report the fact that the “coloring book dinosaur” who represents a bogus drilling practice that has been responsible for polluting our water supply to the point that it is flammable…along with the fact that it has been making people and animals very sick, with many animals dying…is being discontinued.

    If that’s “dumber” to you than actually having a “coloring book dinosaur” who represents these things and is aiming the brainwashing at our children in the first place, then you’ve got issues. I hope that you’re not one of those people who screams about the chron having some sort of “liberal” bias. Your last statement would “kind of” refute that notion if it was true.

    #7
  8. houtexanfan

    Paul, people like you are so ill-informed that it does no good to go into any in depth response.

    #8
  9. Chris

    Paul, it is you who needs to get a clue on the frac’ing and oil/gas industry in general. What little you appear to know is embarrassing. And if frac’ing was eliminated, so would a majority of the production world wide. Not just gas either. Thinking that your politicians are any smarter, or apparently the Chron, isn’t helping your cause.

    #9
  10. eiioi

    Paul, I think most people in the City of Houston wouldn’t care if fracing happened below their homes. Responsible hydrofracing doesn’t contaminate groundwater; improperly set plugged or substandard cement jobs cause contamination.
    Besides, if you had done any research, you would know that nearly everyone in Harris County gets their water from surface reservoirs. Your lack of awareness of this simple LOCAL fact calls into question your knowledge about anything happening in the Marcellus Shale.

    #10
  11. olddispatcher

    There is so much mis-information being put out by both sides in this debate that it is no wonder it has gotten so silly.

    Hyd. Fracturing has been around for what? fifty years? And it is just now a problem?

    The big concern is gas getting into well water supplies. The easy answer to this is that few water wells are thousands of feet deep like oil and gas wells are. Is there natural gas in some water. Yes. Did it get there by this process? The only way to answer that is to ask…. How could it?

    A cracked salt dome, and there have been several that I know of, could let gas escape into a home or structure, but a cracked dome is a totally different thing than a cracked well.

    Real education of everyone is the answer. As long as there is ignorance on this subject it will continue to have critics.

    #11
  12. Paul

    houtexfan, well…your “revised” comment sure adds a lot to this “debate.”

    Chris, please “inform” me…why are so many people’s tap water flammable where fracking has been going on…and why are people and animals getting sick (with the same symptoms) and, in some cases with animals, dying? Or are all these people “faking” it? Also, I never said anything at all about our politicians or the chron “being smarter” than…uhh…anything. Where did you get that from? THAT isn’t exactly “helping your cause.” By the way, I don’t care about oil production as we have had the technology to go with solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. for decades now. Why are we STILL using this crap? Oh yeah…because our politicians and our media have been bought and sold by the oil and gas industry (amongst others).

    eiioi, I’d be willing to take the Pepsi challenge on that one. If you really “think” that MOST Houstonians (or any other pool of people who are aware of the recent incidents with our recent fracking boom) “wouldn’t care,” then I have some oceanfront property in Shreveport I can sell you. By the way, “fracking” may have “been around” for 50 years…but first of all…it’s not like we haven’t had these same chemicals in our water to a lesser extent over the last 50 years…and also…there has obviously been a HUGE increase in fracking lately. Flammable tap water doesn’t “lie.” I like how you said “responsible” hydrofracing. You may be right for the most part, but don’t sit here and act like you “know” EXACTLY what’s gonna happen when fracturing layers of rock and injecting chemicals under high enough pressure to measure by the richter scale into different parts of the earth. Apparently, the “experts” at Halliburton don’t, either. Either that, or they don’t care. You can’t tell me that ANY “expert” KNOWS EXACTLY HOW the earth is going to crack thousands of feet underground. Logic should dictate that different results are going to occur at different locations. You don’t need to be a geologist or an oil/natural gas “expert” to know that. I also love your condescending “if you had done any research” comment about surface reservoirs…and then trying to marginalize me by trying to link the fact that Houstonians get our water from reservoirs (which I already knew, btw) to what’s happening in the Marcellus Shale…with absolutely no regard for the fact that no fracking has taken place under the Barker or Addicks Reservoirs. One has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other on this issue.

    OTHER THAN THAT, great “argument.”

    #12
  13. almostdallas

    Hi Paul – For starters, I wasn’t trying to be “deep”. Secondly, show me the geochemical data that directly links the sink gas with the Marcellus gas. If there’s a link, then we need to look for a bad cement job nearby. Markey’s problem is that he spouts vitriol from the hip without any such data to back him up.

    #13
  14. Westtex

    spyder,
    What is Fracking? Have you ever even seen it done? Do you have ANY FREAKING IDEA of what you are talking about or do the Libs send you subliminal messages that you blindly repeat?
    -
    I personally have been on hundreds of Frac jobs and I can say that it does NOT permanently damage the environment. Some fluid may be spilled on the ground but it is immediately cleaned up!

    #14
  15. Westtex

    Paul,
    Fracking is NOT a drilling process! You FOOL! Fracking is a completions process. NO ONE would want to frac the formation while they drill.
    -
    And really, you keep throwing around “all of the problems that have resulted from fracking.” NAME ONE INSTANCE! Or are you just like spyder? Do you just listen to morons who don’t know anything and repeat it because it makes you sound somewhat intelligent?

    #15
  16. gr

    Oh, crap!
    I thought fracking was fixing to become extinct !!

    Fracking is a method that uses poisons that will help to release gases, which will be caught in the same drill bore.
    Fracking is drilling- west-tex.
    Fracking will poison the remainder of our clean natural underground water resources, and not just here in Houston:

    Fracking fluids poison a national forest/

    http://current.com/green/93329021_fracking-fluids-poison-a-national-forest.htm

    ALSO:

    http://current.com/community/93339218_countdown-with-keith-olbermann-07-13-2011-6-fracking-with-mark-ruffalo.htm

    Anyone who says fracking is safe is a crackpot, and probably on the payroll of some gas company.

    #16
  17. Westtex

    gr,
    I have MANY years in the West Texas Oil Fields and have been on HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of frac jobs. IT IS NOT A DRILLING PROCESS. The well would have been drilled to TD, cased, logged and then perforated (sometimes just before a frac job) before a frac job can even begin!
    -
    So gr, how many frac jobs have you been on? How long have you been in the oil industry? Researching it on Google or Al Gore’s website doesn’t make you an expert in fracing!

    #17
  18. eiioi

    Paul, your overuse of scare quotes (11 times for me, 5 for the others), cliches (Pepsi challenge, oceanfront property), and your distrust of science (the experts don’t and can’t know anything) indicates to me and any casual, outside observer that you are flailing and have no knowledge of the issues.

    Don’t take it from me though. Nearly all state governments would support my view as well. Just a few months ago, TCEQ presented a session on fracing at their annual conference. Most of the session was about how to educate the federal government about fracing (i.e., showing them that the Gasland hype was mostly misinformation) and prepare for the feds’ overreaction. The TCEQ representative, a geologist, explained quite clearly how fracing in a properly completed well at 10,000 feet deep causing contamination of drinking water aquifers at 200 feet deep is exceedingly unlikely.

    Plus, you seem to think that since Barker and Addicks are called “reservoirs”, that they are a drinking water reservoirs. Do you even live in Houston, or have you ever been to these, or do you know how to Google? These reservoirs are for flood control.

    Your credibility was in question before. There is no longer any question.

    #18
  19. Paul

    almostdallas, if you google “fracking studies,” you’ll find a plethora of them to choose from. If you’re looking for “geochemical data”…I’ll ask you how exactly you would plan on getting that info. There’s certainly no “evidence” that actually involves finding every crack that is formed by fracking…or being able to “find” every chemical trail’s path. Not every square millimeter is covered by “geochemical evidence” that we may have. The Duke University testing of 60 drinking water wells in the Marcellus Shale for dissolved gas, and finding that most of them had some methane…with the ones closest to the gas wells having an average of 17 times more methane than the ones further away…and plenty of other studies that generally agree…and people’s tap water all of the sudden becoming flammable soon after their neighborhood gets fracked…and people and animals all of the sudden getting sick with the same symptoms…and some other reasons…is “good enough” for me. Water and chemicals can get through the slightest cracks. We can’t even predict the weather. Until you can “convince” me, or anyone, that we are capable of “knowing” EXACTLY HOW the earth is going to crack from fracking…and that will never happen because it’s virtually impossible…I’m not listening to the argument that fracking is “safe.” But even then, we have no business using fossil fuels anymore. Green energy has been long overdue.

    *

    Westtex, fracking itself isn’t “drilling”…but fracking requires drilling a hole thousands of feet into the ground. Why are getting so caught up in that tecnicality?

    #19
  20. Paul

    eiioi, if you’re calling “people and animals getting sick and, in some cases, dying” SCARE QUOTES…what would it take for you to “believe” that fracking may have something to do with their contaminated and/or flammable water supply? What’s wrong with either of the cliches I used…and why are you focusing on THOSE without even addressing what I was talking about. Do you really think most people who are aware of the fracking situation “wouldn’t care” if fracking was going on below their homes? I don’t need “data” to tell me that you’re just wrong…and I’m not “sorry” if you were too hung up on the “Pepsi challenge” or “oceanfront property” part of my comment to actually address that. Also, I never said “the experts don’t or you can’t know anything”. You put those words in my mouth. I SAID “apparently, the ‘experts’ at Halliburton don’t, either” when I was referring to how NO ONE “knows” exactly how the earth is going to crack from fracking…which is obviously a true statement. There have been NUMEROUS examples of people getting contaminated and/or flammable water all over the country soon after fracking has been taking place.

    You’re right that we can’t “prove” that fracking has been causing the water contamination…but that says more about our legal system than truth. There is no feasible way to “link” the exact source(s) of surface water contamination from thousands of feet underground through probably millions of different sized cracks in a given fracking event…at least by our definition of “proof.” Like I told almostdallas, until you can “convince” me, or anyone, that we are capable of “knowing” EXACTLY HOW the earth is going to crack from fracking at any given location, I’m not going to listen to the “fracking is safe” argument. You certainly can’t “prove” that fracking is “not” doing these things…and there is more than enough evidence against your side of this argument to validate my position. It’s funny how even the TCEQ representative used the words “exceedingly unlikely.” He or she basically admitted that it’s at least possible…and plenty of data has recorded substantially contaminated drinking water where fracking has taken place.

    As for my Barker and Addicks Reservoir comment, you’re right. They are for flood control, and not drinking water. I made a mistake…and btw, I did know they are for flood control…I don’t know what I was thinking there. I see the signs all the time. Btw, I do live in Houston…what kind of question is that? Seriously? Do you “have to be a Houstonian” to “know” that in your “mind?” I’d be willing to bet a lot of Houstonians don’t know that. It is kind of funny, though, that you once again steered the conversation away from the POINT I made…which is TRUE (that no fracking is going on near our local water supply…which makes your condescending comment “…if you had done any research, you would know that nearly everyone in Harris County gets their water from surface reservoirs” irrelevant) to make that weak attempt to marginalize me by your “credibility” standards…or seemingly lack thereof. That’s the second time you focused on (and only replied to) technicalities over substance in that comment.

    #20
  21. eiioi

    Paul,
    en wikipedia org/wiki/Scare_quotes#Negative You use them more than Bennett Brauer.

    You’re introducing doubt where there is none, and magnifying it where there is. This tactic is used often by practitioners of pseudoscience, from anti-climate science, to diet coke scares, to evolution. Your M.O. is to say: no one can know for sure whether it’s safe, and we have emotional testimonials (from biased people), therefore, it must not be safe.

    Also, regarding “exceedingly unlikely” (YT: watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA). Who cares if there’s an infinitesimally small chance? Society does not have the resources to chase every last possible health scare fad that comes along. The EPA and OSHA would agree with that too, though it’s something they rarely acknowledge publicly and directly. The EPA and OSHA and NIOSH go by the 1 in 1 million rule: it is an acceptable risk if the risk of someone in the public is getting cancer over their lifetime is 0.0001%. Why else would there be acceptable limits for a whole range of toxic substances, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to OSHA PELs, etc. When your lifetime risk of cancer from suntanning or being fat or smoking is close to 25%, does it really matter if there MIGHT be a 0.000001% chance of getting it from 1 ppm diesel in your water?

    And seeing as there hasn’t been *ONE* case of cancer from fracing and not even any receptor pathway, I’d say we could spend our dollars reserved for the environment and public health on more important environmental issues.

    #21
  22. Paul

    eiioi, that’s the first time in my life I’ve ever heard “quotation marks” referred to as “scare quotes.” If that’s what you meant, then why didn’t you just say “quotation marks?” I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that using quotation marks is some sort of “tactic.” I do use a lot…not quite as much as “my boy” Bennett (nice reference…I’ve actually thought of “him” myself when reading my posts)…but none of them were inappropriate…and they have no significance to this conversation.

    As far as “introducing doubt where there is none, and magnifying it where there is”…give me an example of that, because it sure seems to me like YOU are DOWNPLAYING the obvious reality that fracking is causing these problems. You can sit here and put words in my mouth (your “your M.O.” statement, amongst others) and talk about my “tactics”…as if I’ve even exaggerated anything (name one thing I’ve said that’s been exaggerated or inaccurate, other than my Barker/Addicks misquote). We’ve never met, remember? Stop acting like you “know” a “fracking” thing about me…you obviously don’t. I don’t sit here and act like I “know” anything about you or your thought process. It’s kind of funny “hearing” you talk about me and how I must have “no knowledge of the issues” when you won’t even RESPOND TO the only real issue there is on this topic…which, go figure…is the obvious issue that is never brought up in the media: You have NO IDEA exactly how the earth is going to crack from any given fracking job…and neither does anyone else. Until you have an answer for that (and we all know you don’t), the “argument” that fracking “isn’t causing these things” is completely fabricated. You’re sticking a pipe thousands of feet into the ground, and using toxic fluids at high enough pressures to cause minor earthquakes in order to break up rock…and you’re trying to tell me there’s “one in a million” type chances (talk about “magnifying”) of something going wrong…even in the face of everything that ALREADY HAS gone wrong??? That’s the definition of ignorance. What the hell ELSE has to happen for you to acknowledge what you can’t logically refute?

    And about “who cares if there’s an ‘infinitesimally’ small chance” (which is obviously total b.s.)…tell that to those people who have suffered. I agree with you that “society does not have the resources to chase every last possible health scare fad that comes along.” Hopefully, the day you “realize” (in the event that you don’t already “realize,” and are just “shilling” out) that…1) this isn’t a “health scare fad,” 2) we can EASILY stop this and 3) there are several MUCH better, cleaner sources of energy than oil and/or gas…will be sooner than later.

    I’m not even going to address your “0.000001% chance” or “1 ppm” comment beyond the first paragraph of your SAME comment when you were talking about “magnifying tactics.” Maybe it’s “okay,” since you didn’t use any quotation marks…I’m sorry, SCARE QUOTES…or “maybe” you’re just being HIGHLY hypocritical.

    Regarding cancer, most of the known fracking-related cases of illness have been over the last decade or so. This is obviously a relatively recent issue. I’ll bet it took quite a while for an “official case” of cancer from smoking occurred. The most common symptoms have included severe headaches and body aches, dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, respiratory problems, as well as mental conditions and impaired senses. I think there have been some cases of suspected cancer from fracking fluids. The fact that fracking fluids contain toxic chemicals that are known carcinogens certainly isn’t HELPING matters much. That said, I agree that we should be spending our money on more important environmental issues…like CLEAN energy. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    #22
  23. almostdallas

    Paul wrote: “The Duke University testing of 60 drinking water wells in the Marcellus Shale for dissolved gas, and finding that most of them had some methane…”
    .
    Hence the need for detailed geochemical analysis. Is the methane in the water wells (generally shallower than 1000 ft) the same methane as in the Marcellus (thousands of feet deeper)? Did the Duke folks include any real geology in their study, or just show plots and wave their arms? Do the water wells actually contain frac fluids, or just gas of unknown origin?
    .
    Further wrote: “…EXACTLY HOW the earth is going to crack from fracking…and that will never happen because it’s virtually impossible…”
    .
    It’s not impossible. Basics of rock mechanics tell us how rocks fracture. Microseismic studies tell us where the rocks are fracturing. These induced fractures do not travel far. Certainly not up to the water aquifers.

    #23
  24. Paul

    “Is the methane in the water wells (generally shallower than 1000 ft) the same methane as in the Marcellus (thousands of feet deeper)?”

    -

    Water samples furthest from the gas drilling showed traces of biogenic methane, which can naturally appear in water from biological decay…but samples taken closer to the drilling had high concentrations of thermogenic methane, which comes from the same hydrocarbon layers where the gas drilling is targeted.

    ***

    “Did the Duke folks include any real geology in their study, or just show plots and wave their arms?

    -

    To determine where the methane in the wells they tested came from, the researchers ran it through a “molecular fingerprinting process” called an isotopic analysis.

    ***

    Do the water wells actually contain frac fluids, or just gas of unknown origin?”

    -

    They tested for salts, radium and other chemicals that, if detected, would have signaled that the produced water or natural fluids in the well’s target zone were making it to the aquifers…but they didn’t find those types of fluids. The group did not specifically test for fracking chemicals or hydrocarbons like benzene, relying instead on the saline or radioactive compounds like radium as indicators. That being said, other types of gases were also detected. Ethane (another component of natural gas) and other hydrocarbons were detected in 81 percent of water wells near active gas drilling, but in only 9 percent of water wells further away. Propane and butane were also detected in some of the drilling area wells. There have been plenty of other studies as well, but again…if you really want a TRUE “geochemical analysis,” then I’ll ask you again…how could we possibly “trace” every square inch of earth between the wells and the fracking layers? How would we be able to follow of every trace of gas/chemical compound through every crack of the earth over thousands of feet deep between the wells and the fracking areas…and how would we “know” which cracks were already there, or a result of fracking, or a result of whatever our process would be to “find out?” I would say “you tell me”…but I already know that’s virtually impossible.

    I personally don’t care if the chemicals that have been found in our water supplies all over the country (from other reports and studies, too) are the result of the fracking itself or the drilling or leaky well casings. The differences between those scenarios are only matters of degree (which does matter, but my point is…again…why are we even having this discussion when REAL clean energy has been available for decades now). None of them are “good” for us or the environment…and fracking involves all of those things. If and when one of things goes wrong, the results can be and often are catastrophic. The problems that can and do occur from drilling…which includes fracking…are putting our environment and our economy in a vice.

    ***

    “It’s not impossible. Basics of rock mechanics tell us how rocks fracture. Microseismic studies tell us where the rocks are fracturing. These induced fractures do not travel far. Certainly not up to the water aquifers.”

    -

    I’d be willing to bet that if we stuck 1,000 different geologists and/or oil and gas drilling experts…and we had them make up some sort of blueprint for what every inch of the earth’s crust would look like between the water wells and the hydrocarbon layers underneath before and after fracking…we would get 1,000 different answers…and not one of them would be exactly right after a drilling/fracking event. We do generally know “how rocks fracture,” but if we haven’t learned by now how unpredictable mother nature is and how little we truly know…then God help us.

    #24
  25. almostdallas

    Paul wrote: “…why are we even having this discussion when REAL clean energy has been available for decades now…”?
    .
    It’s a matter of scale. You might be able to power your life with “green” energy. Without fossil fuels, however, big things stop working. The world as we know it shuts down when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing.

    #25
  26. Paul

    That’s not true. A lot of the fuel we should be using can be obtained by growing hemp…and for “big things”…we should be using solar, wind and hydrogen. The sun doesn’t have to be out all day and the wind doesn’t have to blow all the time, either. We can store those kinds of energy now…and new technologies are making it cheaper to do so over time. Solar energy is something like 7 or 8 times cheaper than it was just 20 years ago…it’s already about as cost effective as using the electric grid over the long run…and it still doesn’t even account for 1% of American energy consumption.

    #26
  27. almostdallas

    Store the energy .. where? Batteries? Inefficient and full of chemicals – worse chemicals than you’ll find in frac fluids. Some days the sun isn’t out at all and the wind may not blow for weeks. Where do we put these massive solar panel and wind farms? Nobody wants to see them. And how are we supposed to fly anyplace? I have yet to see a jet that runs on anything but jet fuel. Hemp? Talk about flying high!
    .
    I agree that we need to ultimately transition to greener energy, with all its benefits. In the meantime, it’s a transition that requires fossil fuels as a component. Natural gas is a clean alternative that reduces our dependence on foreign sources. The way to get natural gas out of tight formations is to frac the rock. Let’s put aside the hype and mis-information.

    #27
  28. Paul

    We can store wind and/or solar energy in hydrogen fuel cells, compressed air tanks, and solar thermal systems…and I’m sure there are some other ways. None of them are “perfect,” but if we were smart and did things like build large solar power plants/storage systems in the deserts and wind farms on the coastlines and more mountainous areas, or just generally windier areas, amongst other things (build mass transit systems…stop building cities 50 miles out in every direction…promote conservation, bicycle use, working closer to home, etc.), it can be easily maintainable. In Seville, Spain…they spent about the equivalent of $50 million dollars on a solar power plant that provides electricity for up to 6,000 homes. That’s less than $10,000 total per home. That means they could rebuild the entire plant every 10 years or so, and still break even with what they”d be paying otherwise…without the pollution or (in our case) doing business with terrorist regimes or starting wars or digging holes miles deep into the earth, etc. There’s a lot more “cost” with fossil fuels than the gas pump itself. And then there’s the auto industry and everything IT “graces” us with on a daily basis.

    Regarding flying…I don’t know have the best answer for that question, other than using a well placed and well built mixed rail/sky tran system for everything except international destinations that require a boat or plane.

    Regarding hemp…first of all, hemp doesn’t translate to marijuana…so can the “flying high” b.s. Hemp may be the most useful plant on Earth. Google it. We can get all of our oil for things like soap, electronics, clothing, and the hundreds or thousands of other things we use with oil from hemp. Hemp is also used for food (it’s very good for you), medicine, fiber, etc….it’s extremely durable, versatile and eco-friendly. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. Ben Franklin owned a hemp paper mill. Henry Ford’s first car was made out of hemp. Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil. As opposed to criminalizing it and/or making pot jokes out of it, we should be growing it all over the country. And for the record, we should have never decriminalized marijuana, either.

    I agree that the transition will still require fossil fuels…there’s no debating that. It just pisses me off that every month is still “truck month”…and fracking should not even be an option at this point.

    #28