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?
"This is good news," said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, who was not involved with the study. He called it a "useful and important approach" to monitoring fracking, but he cautioned 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.
Here's a tip: if you post a URL to a story, read it first.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"