Well lets see there's only the platypus, the corroboree frog and the birdwing butterfly for poisonous critters, so I'd be much more worried about the venomious critters down-under.
It's not that big of a deal since they're going to use the same pathetically weak password on any site that they can still get into.
Sure, I'll give you a call. You have a land line number?
Jets and ships are still reasonably compelling uses of carbon, since it's so easy to run around with as a concentrated source of energy. Transcontinental truck deliveries, eh, maybe, although there are other options like rail, and trucks can conceivably be powered by energy dense fuels like hydrogen that release comparable amounts of energy upon oxidation, even if producing them requires investments of electrical power as opposed to cheap mining. But things like stationary power generation facilities don't need to be carbon-based at all, and those are responsible for far greater emissions than vehicles.
Did you read the link? Look, there is ZERO connection with Fracking and contamination of ground water.... They've looked for it, and haven't found it.
In one single well in Western Pennsylvania. The Duke University scientist quoted in that article- that *you* posted the link to and are yelling at people to read- specifically notes that "the single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation," which proves you haven't read your own link yourself! See how easy it is to prove a negative?
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.