Germany has rapidly made a bold, substantial shift to solar and wind. And with the advent of new batteries, Australia is planning a complete conversion to renewables. If hi-tech is cheaper than fossil fuels, and maintains power for individual users when the grid goes down, and offers an array of new jobs, why should we be indebted to filthy, old habits? Nostalgia?
1
Companies like Germany's BASF are locating factories in the US, not in Germany since the cost of energy is three times as much as in the US. Imagine that, jobs coming to America. The economic reality is that the transition to non fossil energy sources is going to take decades because renewable energy sources are not economically viable today or tomorrow. And unless China and India are part of the effort, those blindly advocating renewable energy are just blowing smoke - literally and figuratively. And what is the best non-fossil fuel source? Nuclear. But that doesn't pass the grade with environmentalists either.
2
Thank you, Mr. Nocera. I don't always agree with you, but you are voice of reason on the Op Ed page.
1
Can you tell me if there is such a thing as cement that doesn't degrade over time, and if not, how can we assume that the wells will be sealed for more than a decade or two?
3
Get real! US production of oil and gas fractions has put billions back in the pockets of Americans. There just isn't any compelling reason not to displace coal with natural gas. Before the fracking boom, the price of gas was over $7 and now is less than $3. What's not to like.
Jobs, lower gas prices and coal being displaced because of economics not government fiat !
Jobs, lower gas prices and coal being displaced because of economics not government fiat !
1
Have you considered the tremendous quantity of water used in tracking, and how much of it is chemically treated in such a way that it will be lost to the hydraulic cycle forever? How can the earth afford to lose any potable water from our scarce resources?
4
I have two cars. Neither can use natural gas. One needs regular gasoline but one can use E85. Where do I buy E85?
No the hard truth is that shale gas will doom us to a hellish future. Our only path is renewables and quick. Studies have shown that we can reach a renewable future. It is just the oil think tanks that perpetuate the myth that we can't depend on renewables.
3
Unfortunately, we are all being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry, do-nothing politicians and climate change deniers. Our "We told you so's" will ring hollow when the the earth becomes unlivable and many species are extinct.
2
Imagining the harm of fracking or the potential of wind and solar is just imagining. New York isn't so far from the frack fields of northern PA or the wind farms of West Virginia that ignorance can be excused. Done well, fracking is cleaner and safer than you would think from reading the frantic press reports.
OTH, wind IS very disruptive and environmentally questionable, you just may not notice because it tears up remote mountain tops. And solar still seems doomed to be a marginal source, which creates it's own ugly mess in the form of selenium, gallium and cadmium waste, not to mention asphaltic wastes from re-roofing. Both wind and solar require endless acres of prime real estate to be dedicated to power generation, creating widespread blight to the environment.
Truth is that there are many communities in NY's southern tier that would welcome the "disruption" of gas wealth and the influx of new industry. Again, get in a car and drive 100 miles northwest. At least try to understand what's really going on before you condemn half the state to a permanent state of poverty.
OTH, wind IS very disruptive and environmentally questionable, you just may not notice because it tears up remote mountain tops. And solar still seems doomed to be a marginal source, which creates it's own ugly mess in the form of selenium, gallium and cadmium waste, not to mention asphaltic wastes from re-roofing. Both wind and solar require endless acres of prime real estate to be dedicated to power generation, creating widespread blight to the environment.
Truth is that there are many communities in NY's southern tier that would welcome the "disruption" of gas wealth and the influx of new industry. Again, get in a car and drive 100 miles northwest. At least try to understand what's really going on before you condemn half the state to a permanent state of poverty.
1
Investing in development of shale gas is wrong headed. We need to direct investment to non-fossil energy, now. E.g. Maglev for passenger & truck transport, space solar, etc.
It is possible that it’s already too late to stop global warming & avoid catastrophe.
Discussions of global warming tend to believe that humanity can continue to consume fossil fuels until things get so bad that the decision is made to switch to other energy sources, and that conditions will not get worse after that.
This belief is very wrong. In reality, at some point, the on-going global warming will pass a trigger point and runaway with no possibility of stopping, even if humanity completely stops consuming fossil fuels. There are 1,000’s of billion tons of carbonaceous material locked up as methane hydrates in the sea beds and organic materials in the Arctic permafrost.
As the oceans and permafrost warm they are releasing methane & carbon into the atmosphere. Ocean methane boils have been observed in the Arctic, along with methane & carbon dioxide emissions from the warming permafrost.
In terms of its effect on global warming, methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. A recent study has concluded that the “release of 50 billion tonnes of predicted amount of hydrate is highly possible for abrupt release at any time”. That would be equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the atmospheric level of CO2, now at 400 parts per million, to 800 parts per million.
It is possible that it’s already too late to stop global warming & avoid catastrophe.
Discussions of global warming tend to believe that humanity can continue to consume fossil fuels until things get so bad that the decision is made to switch to other energy sources, and that conditions will not get worse after that.
This belief is very wrong. In reality, at some point, the on-going global warming will pass a trigger point and runaway with no possibility of stopping, even if humanity completely stops consuming fossil fuels. There are 1,000’s of billion tons of carbonaceous material locked up as methane hydrates in the sea beds and organic materials in the Arctic permafrost.
As the oceans and permafrost warm they are releasing methane & carbon into the atmosphere. Ocean methane boils have been observed in the Arctic, along with methane & carbon dioxide emissions from the warming permafrost.
In terms of its effect on global warming, methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. A recent study has concluded that the “release of 50 billion tonnes of predicted amount of hydrate is highly possible for abrupt release at any time”. That would be equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the atmospheric level of CO2, now at 400 parts per million, to 800 parts per million.
4
So natural gas is "here to stay." A perfect example of the thinking that got us into this trap. Of course people will use whatever energy is cheapest--until they can't.
It is perfectly possible for us to destroy our civilization. That is a fact. Being fact-driven, Mr. Nocera must know that this has happened many times before. My understanding is that many of the crashes occurred because of environmental over-stepping.
What has always happened before, however, is that the crash of one civilization could occur more or less in isolation. The crash of the society of Easter Island didn't make a ripple anywhere else. Even the crash of the Western Roman Empire had little if any effect on China or India, and none at all on the Western hemisphere.
What's really different about today is that except for a few hundred people isolated in mountains or jungles, there is only one civilization, and it is world-wide. What makes Mr. Nocera think that it is impossible for that civilization to crash?
Up to now, we as a species could afford to think of the natural world as just another part of our local economic system, because when that thinking caused local catastrophe, there were lots of other groups to continue on.
The big difference, the most important point, is that that is simply no longer true.
It is perfectly possible for us to destroy our civilization. That is a fact. Being fact-driven, Mr. Nocera must know that this has happened many times before. My understanding is that many of the crashes occurred because of environmental over-stepping.
What has always happened before, however, is that the crash of one civilization could occur more or less in isolation. The crash of the society of Easter Island didn't make a ripple anywhere else. Even the crash of the Western Roman Empire had little if any effect on China or India, and none at all on the Western hemisphere.
What's really different about today is that except for a few hundred people isolated in mountains or jungles, there is only one civilization, and it is world-wide. What makes Mr. Nocera think that it is impossible for that civilization to crash?
Up to now, we as a species could afford to think of the natural world as just another part of our local economic system, because when that thinking caused local catastrophe, there were lots of other groups to continue on.
The big difference, the most important point, is that that is simply no longer true.
3
Joe, people just don't like their drinking water messed with. Some of us have wells. Do you remember them?
3
We have recently learned from reports in The Guardian that Big Oil has known for decades that climate change is real, while at the very same time it spent millions to deceive the public about its reality, in exactly the same way the tobacco companies lied about cancer. I suspect that Big Oil is equally aware of the devastating effects of fracking, mostly because they pushed through massive deregulation of fracking under Dick Cheney's watch in 2005 before really getting down to business in this country. Not only has fracking been a public health and safety disaster, there is no mitigating technology right around the corner, as the eminently reasonable status quo, represented here by Levi and Nocera, would have us believe. If Levi and Nocera are, as this article claims, fact based, then they know that we can only burn about one fifth of current fossil fuel reserves if we hope to stay under a two degree average global temperature rise. How does fracking, and the massive investment in fracking infrastructure from pipelines to drill pads to cracking factories, fit into this? It doesn't. It's a third wave of fossil fuel exploration at a time when scientists know that we need to use every drop of available energy to transition off fossil fuels. Fracking infrastructure is in direct competition with those transition dollars--and with a livable future.
4
New report questions the safety of fracking:
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/2015/7/new-report-que...
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/2015/7/new-report-que...
3
Unless you live in an area where Fracking is occurring,
Unless you live next door to a well , you are not qualified to tell the rest of us who are what it means.-
Try living in any of the heavily fracked states and then write an editorial for the ny times about the subject.
With any degree of subjectivity .
Unless you live next door to a well , you are not qualified to tell the rest of us who are what it means.-
Try living in any of the heavily fracked states and then write an editorial for the ny times about the subject.
With any degree of subjectivity .
2
Entrenched power industries are blocking the development of renewables. As a result the U.S. Is behind the rest of the world in use of solar thermal heating of hot water for the home. Instead, we have electric hot water heaters fueled by fossil fuel. Also comparisons of rooftop solar electric power with purchased power conveniently forget to include the transmission costs which represent half of an electric bill. The newly announced Tesla home batteries will bring this into clear focus.
3
It simply is unrealistic to think that the world can do away with fossil fuels completely in the near future. This is true if only because fossil fuels are needed to power heavy transportation such as large trucks, trains, planes, and marine traffic. There simply is not a battery big enough that could power heavy loads over a long distance. However, natural gas is an effective transportation fuel, either as compressed gas or as liquified natural gas.
The quickest way for this country to reduce the emission of global warming pollutants, chiefly CO2, is to put in place a tri-partite strategy of adopting solar, wind, and natural gas as our energy sources. Use of coal and oil derivatives like gasoline should be abandoned. Hopefully, it will be possible in the long run to replace the use of natural gas with an energy source which does not produce any carbon emissions, but that will not happen for a while.
I always have to laugh at people who demand that all fossil fuels be eliminated immediately and who then jump into their gasoline powered vehicles and drive off somewhere. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
The quickest way for this country to reduce the emission of global warming pollutants, chiefly CO2, is to put in place a tri-partite strategy of adopting solar, wind, and natural gas as our energy sources. Use of coal and oil derivatives like gasoline should be abandoned. Hopefully, it will be possible in the long run to replace the use of natural gas with an energy source which does not produce any carbon emissions, but that will not happen for a while.
I always have to laugh at people who demand that all fossil fuels be eliminated immediately and who then jump into their gasoline powered vehicles and drive off somewhere. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
3
Environmentalists see economic growth as a negative. They are wealthy, and feel like they got theirs, and if only poor people would stop reproducing, the world would be a better place.
2
Please read other readers' comments, many of which directly disprove your inaccurate overgeneralizations.
2
Expand the debate beyond fossil fuels versus renewables. Cutting meat consumption will do more for the environment and much quicker than almost anything else. I am in my 70th year of life and not had meat in 40 years. I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro in June with a 155 cholesterol level. My carbon footprint is smaller, and I enjoy wonderful health benefits.
4
The problem with carbon is the total amount in the atmosphere not the amount we add each year. Fossil fuels, any fossil fuel, increases that total amount and moves us closer to disaster. Natural gas may move us there more slowly but that is not necessarily a virtue.
Fracking and tar sands oil extraction use emmense amounts of water. To continue these practices while the west coast burns is an absurdity. We are wasting a crucial natural resource to avoid doing what we must inevitably do. It's like a hungry man eating his own arm rather than planting a garden.
Fracking and tar sands oil extraction use emmense amounts of water. To continue these practices while the west coast burns is an absurdity. We are wasting a crucial natural resource to avoid doing what we must inevitably do. It's like a hungry man eating his own arm rather than planting a garden.
4
Joe, always a pleasure reading your articles, but this one is a bit weak. The overriding fact is that the oil and gas industries have a choke hold on American politics. As long as the filibuster exists even another democratic president and congressional majorities could not pass serious energy legislation. Republicans, who are cynically choosing not to believe in climate change, would always prevent that. Time is running out. Gas, coal, wood, whatever: if we don't act soon the global climate will most likely go over a cliff. Incremental measures like replacing coal with gas are not enough. We need to go cold turkey, or it's too late. And even if we do, it may already be too late.
4
Mr. Nocera, I suggest you take a look at "Readers' Picks" and take the substance seriously. Quite a few people have pointed out that by picking information that agrees with your bias, you have ignored a lot. Amongst a good bit of worry and irritation is a lot of detailed and cogent information.
They have gone into detail about what's wrong with your preference. You are, in fact, not an expert on climate, and your choices have all been a long way from helpful. Surely you care about the future of us all? Please try harder to learn what you don't know instead of joining the ranks of unskeptical fossil proponents.
In particular, your characterization of people who follow reality and science as impractical is wrong. What is impractical is to go on and on and on with fossil fuels, even as renewables are showing great potential. What is impractical is to think that regulation will succeed when your preferred marketers are all about removing regulations.
There's a lot of business in getting people like you to distract from the point, which is that unless we leave a good bit of fossil in the ground, we are pretty much toast.
Please look at the material you don't want to know about, and consider that you might be one of the many who have appointed themselves experts in fields they have not done the hard work and study to understand.
They have gone into detail about what's wrong with your preference. You are, in fact, not an expert on climate, and your choices have all been a long way from helpful. Surely you care about the future of us all? Please try harder to learn what you don't know instead of joining the ranks of unskeptical fossil proponents.
In particular, your characterization of people who follow reality and science as impractical is wrong. What is impractical is to go on and on and on with fossil fuels, even as renewables are showing great potential. What is impractical is to think that regulation will succeed when your preferred marketers are all about removing regulations.
There's a lot of business in getting people like you to distract from the point, which is that unless we leave a good bit of fossil in the ground, we are pretty much toast.
Please look at the material you don't want to know about, and consider that you might be one of the many who have appointed themselves experts in fields they have not done the hard work and study to understand.
8
Our problem it seems to me, is that most people agree that fossil fuels are a problem, but there is no overall plan to get us off of them. Renewable power sources are fine for part of the the power we need, but for now they are not capable of providing the vast number of megawatts of base load power that the US needs. At present there are two and only two power technologies that can supply that much power: Fossil fuels & nuclear; both have severe problems associated with their use.
This would seem to point to the need for a coordinated, national plan of research for alternatives for base load power technology and for some sort of electrical storage system that would unlock the potential of renewable power sources. The idea would be to commercialize the research and then to plan for the implementation of these clean technologies as soon as practical.
Unfortunately we seem to be moving in fits and starts, with funding levels that are too low and no coordination among the various parties. This needs to become a national priority or we will pay a very heavy price both now and in future generations.
This would seem to point to the need for a coordinated, national plan of research for alternatives for base load power technology and for some sort of electrical storage system that would unlock the potential of renewable power sources. The idea would be to commercialize the research and then to plan for the implementation of these clean technologies as soon as practical.
Unfortunately we seem to be moving in fits and starts, with funding levels that are too low and no coordination among the various parties. This needs to become a national priority or we will pay a very heavy price both now and in future generations.
2
Environmentalist hyperbole? It's not possible to overestimate the problems that will be the result of business as usual. Nocera just doesn't understand the science.
"Climate change has already cut into the global food supply and is fuelling wars and natural disasters, but governments are unprepared to protect those most at risk, according to a report from the UN's climate science panel."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-s...
According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5–6 degrees of temperature increase is "a real possibility."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
"Climate change has already cut into the global food supply and is fuelling wars and natural disasters, but governments are unprepared to protect those most at risk, according to a report from the UN's climate science panel."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-s...
According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5–6 degrees of temperature increase is "a real possibility."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
3
Natural gas may be an interim step in going from coal to renewables to provide our electrical power, but the trouble with fracking is that it will make our economy too dependent on a relatively cheap source of energy while delaying a needed move to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal. The federal government should instigate a carbon tax and increase it year-by-year until the economic advantage of switching to renewables becomes apparent. The carbon tax money should be used to subsidize the development of renewables so that renewable capacity will be there when it's needed.
Yes, Americans may have to pay a little more for their electricity and their heat, but the climate change threat is serious, and we can't afford to keep putting off dealing with it until it becomes catastrophic.
Yes, Americans may have to pay a little more for their electricity and their heat, but the climate change threat is serious, and we can't afford to keep putting off dealing with it until it becomes catastrophic.
3
In fact, Mr. Nocers, no fossil fuel is 'here to stay.' There is a finite amount of it, and even if we insist on squeezing the very last ounce of it from the earth and putting it into the atmosphere, in the end it will all be gone. The question is just how long it will take us to convert to better energy sources.
5
Pumping millions of gallons of poisoned water deep underground is a disaster in the making. I don't care how you slice and dice it.
11
Like any other GHG emitting energy, natural gas use should include a serious carbon tax, giving incentives to further cut emissions sooner, not later. Regulatory tools can and should be used, too, but imposing prices on emissions, prices we all need to face, is necessary.
5
There are flaws in the arguments about economic growth effects:
Fracking has boosted economic growth only because it requires a great deal of investment spending. If the same funds were spent on investments in clean energy, smart grid technologies and clean energy R&D rather than on fracking technologies economic growth would also be boosted but with much less greenhouse gas emissions in the long term. In fact, given the current dearth of US investment spending economic growth could be boosted while also greatly reducing future emissions -- a virtual free lunch that's impossible to achieve by continuing to invest in fracking and other fossil fuel technologies.
What's most unpragmatic is the fact that the more private investment spending there is today on fossil fuel infrastructure the harder it will be in the future to shift to cleaner energy sources. That's because the private sector makes investments today for the sake of profits in the future, often very far into the future. Every long term investment today in fossil fuels will create more vested interests clinging to them in the future for their sake of those profits, which only makes those interests more entrenched and more incentivized to sabotage efforts to reduce emissions by switching to clean energy sources.
Fracking has boosted economic growth only because it requires a great deal of investment spending. If the same funds were spent on investments in clean energy, smart grid technologies and clean energy R&D rather than on fracking technologies economic growth would also be boosted but with much less greenhouse gas emissions in the long term. In fact, given the current dearth of US investment spending economic growth could be boosted while also greatly reducing future emissions -- a virtual free lunch that's impossible to achieve by continuing to invest in fracking and other fossil fuel technologies.
What's most unpragmatic is the fact that the more private investment spending there is today on fossil fuel infrastructure the harder it will be in the future to shift to cleaner energy sources. That's because the private sector makes investments today for the sake of profits in the future, often very far into the future. Every long term investment today in fossil fuels will create more vested interests clinging to them in the future for their sake of those profits, which only makes those interests more entrenched and more incentivized to sabotage efforts to reduce emissions by switching to clean energy sources.
9
Coal burning must end quickly or we're doomed as far as planetary warming is concerned, and the associated impacts on humans and habitats.
Drilling for tight gas (or oil) is not the way to go either. Both are incredibly expensive, over $10 million a well, and thousands or tens of thousands have to be drilled to exploit a given geologic formation.
The reserves from such an effort will last a few decades, not the century industry supporters claim.
The environmental damage and risks will be huge ... and at bottom this whole approach is one of risking contamination of water supplies that would take nature hundreds of years or longer to mend.
It involves wasting resources, technologies and incredible amounts of money in support of a losing paradigm that inevitably will not solve our long term energy needs. Those who promote this path and engage in it care about one thing only: profits now. What's in the long term interest of society is of no concern to them.
Solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go. They are competitive with coal now if you include the fact that no carbon sequestration is needed.
Renewables should be our national priority. Nocera is not a scientist or knowledgeable on this topic. Hope people will give his industry PR views the weight they deserve.
Drilling for tight gas (or oil) is not the way to go either. Both are incredibly expensive, over $10 million a well, and thousands or tens of thousands have to be drilled to exploit a given geologic formation.
The reserves from such an effort will last a few decades, not the century industry supporters claim.
The environmental damage and risks will be huge ... and at bottom this whole approach is one of risking contamination of water supplies that would take nature hundreds of years or longer to mend.
It involves wasting resources, technologies and incredible amounts of money in support of a losing paradigm that inevitably will not solve our long term energy needs. Those who promote this path and engage in it care about one thing only: profits now. What's in the long term interest of society is of no concern to them.
Solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go. They are competitive with coal now if you include the fact that no carbon sequestration is needed.
Renewables should be our national priority. Nocera is not a scientist or knowledgeable on this topic. Hope people will give his industry PR views the weight they deserve.
7
Natural gas is better than coal.
Domestic oil is preferable to oil from the mideast.
Relativism.
Given the energy protesters decry coal, whine about oil and natural gas then turn around and protest wind energy and solar they should mostly be ignored.
Domestic oil is preferable to oil from the mideast.
Relativism.
Given the energy protesters decry coal, whine about oil and natural gas then turn around and protest wind energy and solar they should mostly be ignored.
2
Let's think straight about this issue, or it will eventually do us all in:
Coal, especially, and oil and gas, are things we are stuck with for the near-term, but obviously problematic and ripe to be replaced when possible - UNLESS you make a fortune producing or selling them - then they are to be preserved at any cost.
Renewable sources have potential for the future and are not totally pie-in-the-sky in the present - UNLESS they compete with your own business, then they are silly and bad and need to be quashed.
NIMBY attitudes about solar and wind reflect a lot of shortsightedness on both sides: eg, those who don't follow the thread that to maintain a modern lifestyle, energy has to come from someplace, and possibly even if you can see it or even if it doesn't look just like things did in the imaginary golden past. MEANWHILE, the idea of big industrial installations generating power (such as in our desert areas) to transmit long distances by wire, losing a lot in the process, only continues the antiquated notion of the power plant distant (and, if possible, invisible) from the users.
Who is behind the stonewalling? Who stands to gain, and who to lose?
Power companies don't want you competing with them by generating your own power. They are big and influential and can spend a lot to sway public opinion. Yet they also stand to gain if they generate power from renewables but sell it the same old way as they've been set up to do for over 100 years.
Coal, especially, and oil and gas, are things we are stuck with for the near-term, but obviously problematic and ripe to be replaced when possible - UNLESS you make a fortune producing or selling them - then they are to be preserved at any cost.
Renewable sources have potential for the future and are not totally pie-in-the-sky in the present - UNLESS they compete with your own business, then they are silly and bad and need to be quashed.
NIMBY attitudes about solar and wind reflect a lot of shortsightedness on both sides: eg, those who don't follow the thread that to maintain a modern lifestyle, energy has to come from someplace, and possibly even if you can see it or even if it doesn't look just like things did in the imaginary golden past. MEANWHILE, the idea of big industrial installations generating power (such as in our desert areas) to transmit long distances by wire, losing a lot in the process, only continues the antiquated notion of the power plant distant (and, if possible, invisible) from the users.
Who is behind the stonewalling? Who stands to gain, and who to lose?
Power companies don't want you competing with them by generating your own power. They are big and influential and can spend a lot to sway public opinion. Yet they also stand to gain if they generate power from renewables but sell it the same old way as they've been set up to do for over 100 years.
We've been ignoring their chicken little yammering for years...they all want so-called "green energy", as long as someone else pays for it and it's in someone else's backyard.
"Levi believes that appropriate rules by both state and federal governments can mitigate the first two problems."
And what are the chances of getting appropriate rules to "mitigate" the environmental problems of fracking?
And what are the chances of getting appropriate rules to "mitigate" the environmental problems of fracking?
5
Some environmentalist really hurt Mr. Nocera's feelings.
Capitalism runs on profit. Energy companies want to maximize profits and walk away from any leftover mess. Fracking pretty much creates big messes of used water with bad chemicals. After the energy companies spend their profits what money is left to clean up the mess. And what about Oklahoma? With all the drilling and fracking earthquakes are much more common. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Capitalism runs on profit. Energy companies want to maximize profits and walk away from any leftover mess. Fracking pretty much creates big messes of used water with bad chemicals. After the energy companies spend their profits what money is left to clean up the mess. And what about Oklahoma? With all the drilling and fracking earthquakes are much more common. Say it ain't so, Joe.
5
Until, all females have no more than 2 children, which is what drives consumerism, which in turn drives energy consumption, there is little hope for the earth. The earth is already more than doubled in population for what living in nature means for a healthy, happy society. Overcrowding causes many problems, as sanity, not just growing food for all of the population is necessary for a decent society. Then, when you have crazy and religious people controlling oil in the Middle East, you only add to the problem.
2
I'm afraid there is a lot of wishful thinking here. A few things, among many, to consider:
Shale gas is uneconomic to extract, unless your well happens to be in the rare sweet spots in each play.
Regulations thus far have not contained the very real danger of methane leakage. Several recent studies document methane emissions far in excess of EPA estimates. Just the distribution system leaks make it "worse than coal" in many localities.
Most shale gas is not used to generate electricity; rather it is burned directly for heat for buildings, cooking, clothes drying, hot water, etc.; it is not in a head-to-head battle with coal.
New methane-burning power plants tend to be peaker plants, which are very expensive to build and only brought online when there is very high demand. It makes more sense economically to forgo building and operating these plants in favor of a better managed grid with demand reduction at peak times using technology, smart grids, battery storage, distributed solar, etc.
It makes more sense to move heating of buildings/hot water to heat pumps, which have a much lower energy/carbon footprint.
Fossil fuel companies should not be subsidized. They are a mature and highly polluting industry and the government should not be giving them taxpayers' money. This enhances the economics of renewables which are subsidized at a much mower level, even though there are an emerging technology that we need to encourage.
Shale gas is uneconomic to extract, unless your well happens to be in the rare sweet spots in each play.
Regulations thus far have not contained the very real danger of methane leakage. Several recent studies document methane emissions far in excess of EPA estimates. Just the distribution system leaks make it "worse than coal" in many localities.
Most shale gas is not used to generate electricity; rather it is burned directly for heat for buildings, cooking, clothes drying, hot water, etc.; it is not in a head-to-head battle with coal.
New methane-burning power plants tend to be peaker plants, which are very expensive to build and only brought online when there is very high demand. It makes more sense economically to forgo building and operating these plants in favor of a better managed grid with demand reduction at peak times using technology, smart grids, battery storage, distributed solar, etc.
It makes more sense to move heating of buildings/hot water to heat pumps, which have a much lower energy/carbon footprint.
Fossil fuel companies should not be subsidized. They are a mature and highly polluting industry and the government should not be giving them taxpayers' money. This enhances the economics of renewables which are subsidized at a much mower level, even though there are an emerging technology that we need to encourage.
8
The people who care (and can afford to) will drive a Prius until fuel cell or plugins become viable. They will turn off unnecessary appliances, such as lights, and buy green. They will vote for leaders who profess support for a carbon tax and breaks for renewables.
All twenty-six of them here in this rural community. All one-hundred-thousand or so on Manhattan Island.
Being shrill is not going to help the cause. So while 'market forces' will not save us painlessly we must be crafty enough to quietly use the rudder to steer the vast majority toward a high efficiency and mostly renewable tomorrow.
And yes, extracting energy from natural gas is likely the best way of the ninja environmentalist.
All twenty-six of them here in this rural community. All one-hundred-thousand or so on Manhattan Island.
Being shrill is not going to help the cause. So while 'market forces' will not save us painlessly we must be crafty enough to quietly use the rudder to steer the vast majority toward a high efficiency and mostly renewable tomorrow.
And yes, extracting energy from natural gas is likely the best way of the ninja environmentalist.
3
What's NOT in Nocera's column: a single word about the amount of water that fracking requires (see below*).
What IS in Nocera's column: That the role of envronmentalists is to "gnash their teeth."
It's ironic that Nocera's apologetic ends with a plea for a "responsible approach" based on "realism."
* A 2011 EPA report estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are used to fracture 35,000 wells in the United States each year - approximately the annual water consumption of 40 to 80 cities each with a population of 50,000... Fracture treatments in coalbed methane wells use from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of water per well, while deeper horizontal shale wells can use anywhere from 2 to 10 million gallons of water to fracture a single well.
What IS in Nocera's column: That the role of envronmentalists is to "gnash their teeth."
It's ironic that Nocera's apologetic ends with a plea for a "responsible approach" based on "realism."
* A 2011 EPA report estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are used to fracture 35,000 wells in the United States each year - approximately the annual water consumption of 40 to 80 cities each with a population of 50,000... Fracture treatments in coalbed methane wells use from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of water per well, while deeper horizontal shale wells can use anywhere from 2 to 10 million gallons of water to fracture a single well.
8
1. Won’t making gas and oil cheaper with new technologies just cause consumption to increase? I assume that heavy political lifting will sideline any plan to impose carbon taxes or recapitalize a significant number of existing power and cement plants. These should be redesigned to use natural gas or alternative fuels and to provide district heating instead of wasting energy on cooling towers.
Now I’m just a simple Rice engineer, but I state that you cannot solve a problem by growing it.
2. We have technology to produce energy but only a few options to sequester CO2. One of them is to increase forests and wetlands. An acre of forest can sequester 1.22 metric tons of CO2 per year but according to my inventory of U.S. oil, coal, and gas consumption, we need 6 billion acres of forest. In effect, we are already exporting 90% of our CO2 emissions to the rest of the world. Even so, we talk only of producing more fossil fuels.
You would not appreciate it if I dumped my organic wastes on your property. Yet we dump CO2 without concern for the well-being of our neighbors. Is that ethical behavior?
3. Government doublespeak talks about increasing energy independence and even exporting our surplus of fossil fuel. However, by increasing production of fossil fuels, we become increasing dependent on our neighbors’ goodwill and ability to expand their forests and wetlands.
Sorry, But there is nothing to see here except bad behavior.
Now I’m just a simple Rice engineer, but I state that you cannot solve a problem by growing it.
2. We have technology to produce energy but only a few options to sequester CO2. One of them is to increase forests and wetlands. An acre of forest can sequester 1.22 metric tons of CO2 per year but according to my inventory of U.S. oil, coal, and gas consumption, we need 6 billion acres of forest. In effect, we are already exporting 90% of our CO2 emissions to the rest of the world. Even so, we talk only of producing more fossil fuels.
You would not appreciate it if I dumped my organic wastes on your property. Yet we dump CO2 without concern for the well-being of our neighbors. Is that ethical behavior?
3. Government doublespeak talks about increasing energy independence and even exporting our surplus of fossil fuel. However, by increasing production of fossil fuels, we become increasing dependent on our neighbors’ goodwill and ability to expand their forests and wetlands.
Sorry, But there is nothing to see here except bad behavior.
9
There is a 2,500-square-mile methane cloud over northwest New Mexico, and NASA is attempting to "solve" this "mystery."
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/2903/nasa-set-to-investigate-methane-in-fou...
Meanwhile, natural gas production has skyrocketed there, and ground measurements show significant methane leaks at almost every drilling site.
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/2903/nasa-set-to-investigate-methane-in-fou...
Meanwhile, natural gas production has skyrocketed there, and ground measurements show significant methane leaks at almost every drilling site.
3
Earlier I posted a comment relating to General Electric returning its appliance manufacturing operations to Louisville after natural gas prices in China become prohibitive.
The Atlantic piece on that major corporate move is linked at
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/...
The Atlantic piece on that major corporate move is linked at
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/...
Please don't forget that the United States has a strategic/military interest in exporting Liquefied Natural Gas to Europe. It is critical that Europe quickly wean itself off dependence on the Russian Federation for their energy supplies.
A power plant lasts about 40 years, most nuclear and many coal plants are at retirement age. Just a few more facts to consider: even if renewables miraculously become economically viable, then we will still need a baseload power source and grid to supply the other 95% real time on demand energy. Which leaves us with 3 choices: 1 natural gas, 2 coal and 3 nuclear. Nuclear is extremely dangerous (we average over 100 events per year in the US) and about 20x more expensive, if you try to factor in cleanup costs - which are so enormous that the taxpayers 75 years from now will be paying it; so nuclear is a very bad choice. Coal is a horrendous polluter, 99% of heavy metal pollution in the soil and water and also a tremendous amount of airborne particulates; so its a bad choice if you care about pollution. Natural Gas is the cleanest energy source and the cheapest if we use the new advanced combined cycle turbines; so it is the best choice for the next 40 year power plant cycle.
1
Renewables are already economically viable. The cost of solar panels has come down a great deal in the last few years. We recently installed them on our house and see the meter turning backwards every day. For those of you that say that solar power is only economically viable in California and similar sunny states, I suggest you study Germany and what they have done with solar.
Just because it's "here to stay" doesn't mean it won't have negative consequences beyond the ones that can be avoided through regulation, whether that regulation is imposed by the companies on themselves or by the government. All "here to stay" means to me is that in the shorter run, markets support this enterprise.
4
It seems clear the NYT doesn't use reason as part of their hiring equation.
1
"Levi believes in the power of facts."
Everyone believes in the power of facts, as long as those facts fit their predetermined ideas about the way the world works. It's one of the more depressing aspects of our nature, really, that we can't seem to admit that we don't always have the right ideas beforehand; too many of us are unwilling to adapt when the world doesn't fit our preconceptions like one of Lou Levov's gloves. Environmentalists have to realize how important the market is and free-marketeers have to realize that the market isn't God.
You strike me -- always have -- as an imminently practical person.
I agree, very much, with your concluding paragraph.
Everyone believes in the power of facts, as long as those facts fit their predetermined ideas about the way the world works. It's one of the more depressing aspects of our nature, really, that we can't seem to admit that we don't always have the right ideas beforehand; too many of us are unwilling to adapt when the world doesn't fit our preconceptions like one of Lou Levov's gloves. Environmentalists have to realize how important the market is and free-marketeers have to realize that the market isn't God.
You strike me -- always have -- as an imminently practical person.
I agree, very much, with your concluding paragraph.
If shale gas is a blessing, then perhaps you have property with several wells that belong to someone else and destroy your land. I will not believe your opinion until you move to Pennsylvania or Utah or the Dakotas ad live with this revolution.
4
"But that doesn’t mean that those who cling to the “free-market fundamentalist dream that a thriving shale gas industry will make climate policy unnecessary” have got it right . .." What will make continued talk about climate change policies unnecessary, is a willingness of all members of the Church of Anthropgenic Causation to forego proselytizing campaigns.
Hyperbole on climate change? Really? This is the future of the planet we're talking about--we've dithered around on this issue for decades, and now time is growing very short. That is the scientific consensus--not the opinion of "ideologues."
As for Mr. Levi, anyone who believes that shale gas extraction can be made reasonably safe with regulations, that those regulations could realistically be enacted nationwide any time soon, and that the regulations would be uniformly and strictly enforced is not a pragmatist, but rather a wishful thinker who is living in an incredibly naive fantasyland.
As for Mr. Nocera, I am sure he can find a family currenty living with the nightmare of fracking who would be very happy to sell him their home at its pre-shale-gas value. That way, the family could get out of Gasland and Mr. Nocera could experience his "blessing" up close and personal.
As for Mr. Levi, anyone who believes that shale gas extraction can be made reasonably safe with regulations, that those regulations could realistically be enacted nationwide any time soon, and that the regulations would be uniformly and strictly enforced is not a pragmatist, but rather a wishful thinker who is living in an incredibly naive fantasyland.
As for Mr. Nocera, I am sure he can find a family currenty living with the nightmare of fracking who would be very happy to sell him their home at its pre-shale-gas value. That way, the family could get out of Gasland and Mr. Nocera could experience his "blessing" up close and personal.
7
I'm on board with Nocera's "pragmatism." Yes, shale gas is less damaging to the climate than coal. Yet his essay has a certain air of fantasy.
Make no mistake. Climate change will have a profound impact on civilization. It's just that liberals, including perhaps Joe Nocera, have a blind spot. Talking about shifting from this source of energy to that doesn't get at the real problem.
It is population growth which causes climate change. And in the US, population growth is primarily driven by immigration. It is therefore hypocritical for NY Times columnists to continually preach about climate change, yet do nothing about the REAL CAUSE, which is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
So everybody "knows" that it is "racist" or a "mark of bigotry" to oppose continued levels of illegal immigration.
And when Donald Trump has the courage to actually bring the subject up, he is shouted down by Hispanic special interest groups, and sanctimonious liberal journalists tell those who have a concern for the environment have "no feeling for the unfortunate."
But there are hundreds of millions of unfortunate who live in the third world, who suffer the ravages of too much population growth, and the NY Times NEVER TELLS THEIR STORIES.
EG: We hear of the 6000 killed in the Srebrenica massacre BUT NOT the 500,000 to a million who were subject to genocide in Rwanda.
Liberals DO NOT CARE about the hundreds of millions starving around the world or they would push for zero population growth.
Make no mistake. Climate change will have a profound impact on civilization. It's just that liberals, including perhaps Joe Nocera, have a blind spot. Talking about shifting from this source of energy to that doesn't get at the real problem.
It is population growth which causes climate change. And in the US, population growth is primarily driven by immigration. It is therefore hypocritical for NY Times columnists to continually preach about climate change, yet do nothing about the REAL CAUSE, which is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
So everybody "knows" that it is "racist" or a "mark of bigotry" to oppose continued levels of illegal immigration.
And when Donald Trump has the courage to actually bring the subject up, he is shouted down by Hispanic special interest groups, and sanctimonious liberal journalists tell those who have a concern for the environment have "no feeling for the unfortunate."
But there are hundreds of millions of unfortunate who live in the third world, who suffer the ravages of too much population growth, and the NY Times NEVER TELLS THEIR STORIES.
EG: We hear of the 6000 killed in the Srebrenica massacre BUT NOT the 500,000 to a million who were subject to genocide in Rwanda.
Liberals DO NOT CARE about the hundreds of millions starving around the world or they would push for zero population growth.
This opinion piece completely omits:
* methane leakage is a serious green-house gas problem. Natural gas is only a climate-benefit (over coal) if the leakage into the atmosphere can be controlled far better than it is now.
* Natural gas exports from the US would have a double-edged benefit: it would help other countries reduce coal usage, and it would raise domestic prices closer to world parity (for LNG). This would encourage domestic conservation, leakage control, and make Wind and Solar and Nuclear more competitive.
* methane leakage is a serious green-house gas problem. Natural gas is only a climate-benefit (over coal) if the leakage into the atmosphere can be controlled far better than it is now.
* Natural gas exports from the US would have a double-edged benefit: it would help other countries reduce coal usage, and it would raise domestic prices closer to world parity (for LNG). This would encourage domestic conservation, leakage control, and make Wind and Solar and Nuclear more competitive.
4
Lee, methane leakage from industry is easily controlled
; but the greatest souce of methane leakage is natural emissions which we really can not control.
; but the greatest souce of methane leakage is natural emissions which we really can not control.
The greatest source of methane leakage is greedy profiteering without regard to consequences and deregulation. How stupid is that?
Probably due to the fact that natural gas is many times as bad as CO2 when it comes to causing global warming, as some escapes every time I turn on the gas stove, or a well is drilled and from transport pipes and on and on it is very likely that using natural gas does not reduce global warming at all. But this is too inconvenient a truth for most our powerful elites admit. You know those who profit from the status quo and in the event of a global disaster will probably be able to escape. Those who comprise the advertiser 1% that essentially pay the wages of media journalists like the one that wrote this article. The real solutions reside in not increasing our energy requiring and polluting human population by several billions in the coming century (even though this will put trillions in the bank accounts of the global 1% via more workers ='s kill wages, and more customers), doing mega conservation via increased efficiency (we have known for decades how to build houses/buildings that are like thermos bottles), and getting most of our energy from solar and wind, and finding away to do controlled fusion energy production.
2
Reminder of one or two elephants in the room–first, that the social costs of burning carbon should be part of prices. If apocalyptic climate change isn't enough, fossil fuel costs span a rogue’s gallery from traffic congestion to ozone depletion, and lung disease. Growing consensus credits such human activity with fueling the earth's sixth mass extinction (e.g. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105: 11466-11473). Not to be alarmist.
Truth be told, unsustainable population in relation to resources is an even bigger elephant. We DO need to include this in the calculus when we consider women's access to family planning, and we DO need healthy skepticism about prophesies of doom from birth dearths that are only starting to turn population south in some advanced economies.
But the first elephant offers a clear prescription: Pigovian taxes - in this case, on carbon content. Phased in to sufficient magnitude, prices would finally incorporate costs the product imposes on third parties, including those in future generations. Then the market would properly discourage overuse of energy overall, more sharply coal, but also dampen appetite for natural gas.
Regressive? The IRS – which would have a much smaller revenue gap to fill – has the tools to make fiscal policy as progressive as we like (e.g. compensating for carbon taxes just enough to assure a resulting system just as progressive as it is now).
Let’s save at least a little space for elephants.
Truth be told, unsustainable population in relation to resources is an even bigger elephant. We DO need to include this in the calculus when we consider women's access to family planning, and we DO need healthy skepticism about prophesies of doom from birth dearths that are only starting to turn population south in some advanced economies.
But the first elephant offers a clear prescription: Pigovian taxes - in this case, on carbon content. Phased in to sufficient magnitude, prices would finally incorporate costs the product imposes on third parties, including those in future generations. Then the market would properly discourage overuse of energy overall, more sharply coal, but also dampen appetite for natural gas.
Regressive? The IRS – which would have a much smaller revenue gap to fill – has the tools to make fiscal policy as progressive as we like (e.g. compensating for carbon taxes just enough to assure a resulting system just as progressive as it is now).
Let’s save at least a little space for elephants.
1
Dear Mr. Nocera:
With all due respect, in my mind a central problem to your premise is that we would use natural gas responsibly, from extraction to combustion—we have absolutely no record of doing that with any other resource.
We, the willingly ignorant public, our conflicted leaders, and amoral corporations, off load costs on to the environment and the disempowered at every turn, and as you alluded to, the rebound effects of efficiency leads to ever more use of resources over time.
We seem to lack responsibility and good judgement at every turn. We straightforwardly address nothing in this world but an endless mantra for mindless material growth and consumption—seven billion strong and headed toward ten billion. We ignore that our problems are global in nature.
What we need are the ideals of constraint, moderation, and all working for the Common Good, globally, as a federation of independent, equal nations. And a new-found respect for the Golden Rule would go a long way in guiding our judgement, as our reliance on the vulgarities of our Market Economy and Homo economicus is failing us miserably.
We are hoping our technical prowess will solve the core problems of our poor human judgement—unbridled material consumption, social and wealth inequality, ecological overshoot, excessive human population and density—this is irrational and is making our problem ever more intractable.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
With all due respect, in my mind a central problem to your premise is that we would use natural gas responsibly, from extraction to combustion—we have absolutely no record of doing that with any other resource.
We, the willingly ignorant public, our conflicted leaders, and amoral corporations, off load costs on to the environment and the disempowered at every turn, and as you alluded to, the rebound effects of efficiency leads to ever more use of resources over time.
We seem to lack responsibility and good judgement at every turn. We straightforwardly address nothing in this world but an endless mantra for mindless material growth and consumption—seven billion strong and headed toward ten billion. We ignore that our problems are global in nature.
What we need are the ideals of constraint, moderation, and all working for the Common Good, globally, as a federation of independent, equal nations. And a new-found respect for the Golden Rule would go a long way in guiding our judgement, as our reliance on the vulgarities of our Market Economy and Homo economicus is failing us miserably.
We are hoping our technical prowess will solve the core problems of our poor human judgement—unbridled material consumption, social and wealth inequality, ecological overshoot, excessive human population and density—this is irrational and is making our problem ever more intractable.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
5
I agree that natural gas has been a boon to U.S. economic security. Sadly-- and perhaps predictably-- extraction and safety standards vary and the short-term environmental risks caused by methane emissions are considerable. State regulation of natural gas extraction prevents the adoption of national safety standards and the technologies to meet such standards. A critical element of the solution is returning regulation to the federal level.
With respect to renewables: they can and should play a major role in powering America. Retrofitting the built environment to reduce energy use and incorporate solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources creates domestic jobs, reduces power costs, and facilitates competitiveness and energy independence, a win-win for the U.S. economy.
With respect to renewables: they can and should play a major role in powering America. Retrofitting the built environment to reduce energy use and incorporate solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources creates domestic jobs, reduces power costs, and facilitates competitiveness and energy independence, a win-win for the U.S. economy.
3
Replacing as much coal and natural gas (and Middle Eastern oil) as possible should have been an American obsession 35-40 years ago when President Carter told us to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater. He was right, but no one wants to give him credit. We would be much better off today environmentally, and a world better off on the radical Islamist jihadi terrorist front. President Carter deserves some much begrudged credit for his unpopular position of the mid- to late 70s.
5
Actually you are mistaken. Carter did more to promote the use of Coal than any other President. After 3 mile island, most if our nation's 600 coal plants were built -during Carter. so he is responsible for a massive amount of pollution.
Carbon is one of two criteria in measuring fossil oxidation emissions.
The other criterion is toxic byproducts of combustion or unavoidable incomplete combustion and its partially combusted hydrocarbons. These are a virtual non-issue (NOx management) burning natural gas next to any other fuel except propane and hydrogen.
The essay is deficient in not explaining both emissions criteria.
Another element is the ability to stop and start the combustion process on demand. Coal and wood are again not practical.
The imperative to lower carbon emissions is clear but wouldn't the process be easier plotting the requisite carbon requirements for life on earth (not a zero value) like a target body weight and working toward the goal in context maximizing the production and deployment carbon consuming organisms along the way?
The other criterion is toxic byproducts of combustion or unavoidable incomplete combustion and its partially combusted hydrocarbons. These are a virtual non-issue (NOx management) burning natural gas next to any other fuel except propane and hydrogen.
The essay is deficient in not explaining both emissions criteria.
Another element is the ability to stop and start the combustion process on demand. Coal and wood are again not practical.
The imperative to lower carbon emissions is clear but wouldn't the process be easier plotting the requisite carbon requirements for life on earth (not a zero value) like a target body weight and working toward the goal in context maximizing the production and deployment carbon consuming organisms along the way?
1
I hate to be chicken little, but if we stay the course we are on, burning fossil fuels, catastrophic results will follow. But the economic motivation to get off fossil fuels is not there. Therefore diaster is approaching. The party will soon be over, the water will dry up, and billions will die. We will begin to see these results in our lifetimes, unless some miracle technology is discovered.
5
The problem is that Nocera and Levi are talking about fracking under the presumption that it is being done safely and correctly: which in most cases, it is not. Natural gas can indeed be a stopgap on the way to renewables, but only if the industry will stop shortcutting such basic provisions as safe well-linings. So there's really not much in this piece at all. Get the companies in line, then we can talk.
7
What Mr Nocera ignores (though many of the comments do not) is that though we can survive with greatly reduced energy, we cannot survive without clean water. Is a reduction in greenhouse gases from using shale gas worth the cost in water? I wonder what drilling companies pay for water? If water were priced according to its importance to our long-term survival, I wonder what the economics of fracking would look like. In pricing water, we need to consider a still growing population and aquifers being used at unsustainable rates.
2
Re: 'On the contrary, writes Levi, “merely making natural gas more abundant may do little, if anything, to curb carbon dioxide emissions.” How can this be? The answer is that, although cheap natural gas is helpful in that it “shoves aside coal,” it also boosts economic growth (which means more emissions), and “gives an edge to industries that are heavy energy users and big emitters.” These two conflicting forces effectively cancel each other out.'
As always, the obvious, elegant, simple, and most powerful mechanism for dealing with this is to tax carbon appropriately. It gets all the incentives right, with no fuss, no muss, and ensures the optimum outcome. Make that tax revenue neutral if you wish.
http://amorpha.blogspot.com/2014/06/liberal-tomfoolery.html
As always, the obvious, elegant, simple, and most powerful mechanism for dealing with this is to tax carbon appropriately. It gets all the incentives right, with no fuss, no muss, and ensures the optimum outcome. Make that tax revenue neutral if you wish.
http://amorpha.blogspot.com/2014/06/liberal-tomfoolery.html
3
As an avid environmentalist, I pay close attention to warnings, to the canary in the mine shaft. But here I have a different perspective. After half a dozen years of fracking on our family farm down south, I have seen this hard-scrabble, hard-luck region's population lifted out of poverty through lease revenues and job creation. And thus far, no environmental side effects. We may be lucky and I don't rely on luck, so I believe we need better controls on this technology. Joe Nocera and Mr. Levi make a lot of sense about bridging to the future here. I would love to see some of the instant outrage about fracking directed more fruitfully toward getting us off coal, toward ending mountaintop mining, and toward ending factory farming where waste is as devastating to a community as any fracking could be . . .more so, really. We have a lot to do to be energy independent, to stop trashing the planet with waste, but let's focus where it can do some good for now and for the future.
2
Thanks for continuing to try to deal rationally with this important issue.
1
This is a good column in that it delves somewhat into the use of natural gas as it affects global warming/climate change. The point that if a technology halves emissions, but at the same times doubles the use of the technology means that there is zero overall reduction, is a good one. For example if population and economic growth leads to doubling the number of total cars, all of them twice as efficient as standard cars, means no net reduction. It will take better mass transit and vehicles with closer to zero carbon footprints to make a difference, both of which are readily do-able.
What counts is overall reduction. Natural gas is an improvement in the short run over coal, and is touted as a bridge to a renewables grid. However, if you build just half a bridge, it's of not much use. We need the incentives, and political will, to build the bridge all the way to renewables, if we are to save the planet from ourselves. Most human self indulgences become quaintly attractive when compared to this one, that is, the overall dependence on burning fossil fuels for energy, which is destroying Earth's ecosystems.
Concentrate on the overall picture, using CO2 as a marker for warming. It's still increasing leading to a cascade of effects: increase in GHG leading to More Warming (MW)-->more moisture in the atmosphere (water vapor is a GHG), MW-->melting of polar ice caps, MW-->release of methane in polar regions, MW-->more hot air from fossil fuel apologists/republicans, MW; etc
What counts is overall reduction. Natural gas is an improvement in the short run over coal, and is touted as a bridge to a renewables grid. However, if you build just half a bridge, it's of not much use. We need the incentives, and political will, to build the bridge all the way to renewables, if we are to save the planet from ourselves. Most human self indulgences become quaintly attractive when compared to this one, that is, the overall dependence on burning fossil fuels for energy, which is destroying Earth's ecosystems.
Concentrate on the overall picture, using CO2 as a marker for warming. It's still increasing leading to a cascade of effects: increase in GHG leading to More Warming (MW)-->more moisture in the atmosphere (water vapor is a GHG), MW-->melting of polar ice caps, MW-->release of methane in polar regions, MW-->more hot air from fossil fuel apologists/republicans, MW; etc
2
Once again, we have the absence of a clear public policy, unmuddied by political peccadillos and wealthy industry lobbyists, undermining the public interest, not just in the United States, but worldwide. A well-considered and balanced energy policy would do us all some good. Maybe we lock all the energy company czars in the same hotel with John Kerry and all the EU players who worked out the Iran nuke deal?
How many times do we have to repeat the Walt Kelly mantra: "We have met the enemy, and he is us"?
How many times do we have to repeat the Walt Kelly mantra: "We have met the enemy, and he is us"?
2
Far from "wishing it away," most environmentalists simply want the pollution costs of natural gas to be factored into the price. Taxpayers deserve accountability for the massive subsidies (direct and indirect) natural gas has received over the years.
And how do you decide that the warnings over climate change are "hyperbole"?! Maybe you should check with some scientists on that one.
And how do you decide that the warnings over climate change are "hyperbole"?! Maybe you should check with some scientists on that one.
55
It is unfortunate that most environmentalists do not want the costs of renewables to be factored into their costs.
The subsidies, direct and indirect, for natural gas are microscopic compared to the subsidies for wind and solar.
The computer models that predict global warming are not able to predict even the past. The most recent ones, that come closer to being able to predict the past (meaning they almost conform to the empirical data) are estimating the warming over the next 100 years to be 0.5 to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Perhaps you should check with some scientists, rather than politicians like Al Gore who has made hundreds of millions of dollars on his hyperbole.
The subsidies, direct and indirect, for natural gas are microscopic compared to the subsidies for wind and solar.
The computer models that predict global warming are not able to predict even the past. The most recent ones, that come closer to being able to predict the past (meaning they almost conform to the empirical data) are estimating the warming over the next 100 years to be 0.5 to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Perhaps you should check with some scientists, rather than politicians like Al Gore who has made hundreds of millions of dollars on his hyperbole.
I have property in the Marcellus Shale region and need to comment. The way that the system works is that the gas company comes into an area and offers people leases that give the company exploration and surface drilling rights and the property owner a percentage of profits once a well is drilled. There is a substantial signing bonus and the promise of a large amount of monthly income, highly attractive to residents of economically depressed regions. Say that, as in my area, 15 property-owners sign on, and we do not. Here’s what happens: The well is drilled. A pipeline is installed. Once the gas is flowing, everyone in the immediate, contiguous area who signed a lease is put into a “unit;” they all receive royalties based on the percentages they negotiated - the owner of the property with the well receiving the most. Except that our property, which is the largest, is located such that some of the properties that signed are cut off from what would otherwise be contiguousness to the well, meaning those property owners receive no royalties unless we sign, and the inability to extract directly from our property by means of underground pipes reduces the overall output (and profit) for everyone in the unit. Our principled position has therefore gained us nothing but the enmity of our neighbors, since we are economically harming them. We, on the other hand, are subjected to the same amount of risk as those who signed, with none of the benefits. This tears communities apart.
8
Remember that economic growth and jobs are important for obvious reasons. No one in power is going to turn their back on these benefit that domestic energy will bring. Fracking will not go away. Therefore, we(environmentalists) need to focus on the regulations to make sure that fracking is done as responsibly as possible. Regulations and enforcing them will help to eliminate the weak and irresponsible operators. Put a small tax on production that could be used to promote renewables.
1
And you get regulation how? Good idea, now get it to work.
The fatal flaw with fracking is water use. Even my Republican friend who used to work in the fracking industry admits this. Using water in a place as dry as the Eagle Ford Shale play is a really bad idea. If the industry can re-use water, which it is doing to some degree, would make it an acceptable 'bridge fuel'. If they do not cut water use, it is not viable in much of the country
4
Those giant cooling towers at electric generating plants is the largest water consumer in most parts of the country but its the combined cycle natural gas electric generating plants that uses far less water than coal and nuclear. Coal generators or only about 25% efficient so 75% of the heat evaporates our fresh surface water (most times) but "new" combined cycle electric generating plants that have the new 60+% efficient turbines plus waste heat recovery elevates efficiency to 75% - 80% range leaving only 25% of the heat to be consumed by evaporating water so new "flacked" natural gas electric generating plant use only 1/3 the normal fresh surface water to make our electricity.
Nocera article assumes that environmentalists need a reality check, that the nation is well on track to facing global warming and all we need do is tweak things a little. Every earth science institution in the world is urging action on global warming, stating, it is happening, threatening humanity and is caused by humans. While the Republican Party panders that no action is needed because it is "natural causes," and not driven by human beings --the position of the fossil fuels industry that pays so much to elect them to office. Without the price of polluting the atmosphere being progressively taxed at a higher rate-- industry will continue to pollute because it is more profitable. The false promises of the free market to do what is right when it would costs them money is fantasy. The need for the clean air and water acts long ago demonstrated the need for environmental protections.
What is sad is that you aren't using your space to ask why it is that the Republican's are been given a pass on their incredibly irresponsible position. And questioning industry as it uses the media to provide false information about global warming. If the science is correct we are facing a disaster for humanity. Industry's misinformation campaign is a crime against humanity. And your writing about shale gas and it's promising character when no effort is being made to use it to achieve that promise. Just more of the same mindless consumption.
What is sad is that you aren't using your space to ask why it is that the Republican's are been given a pass on their incredibly irresponsible position. And questioning industry as it uses the media to provide false information about global warming. If the science is correct we are facing a disaster for humanity. Industry's misinformation campaign is a crime against humanity. And your writing about shale gas and it's promising character when no effort is being made to use it to achieve that promise. Just more of the same mindless consumption.
7
Mr. Nocera wants to talk in hard-boiled facts? Ok, here are two that frame the entire issue in my mind:
1. There is a tipping point (exactly when unknown) that carbon emissions will make the climate extremely inhospitable in many places.
2. There is another tipping point (exactly when unknown), clean energy will replace fossil fuels because they will be cheaper.
It all comes down to which event takes place first. Right now, our plan for the greatest potential catastrophe in the history of civilization seems to be to sit back and hope and wish that our planet can take the beating long enough for someone to invent a cheap and reliable source of clean energy. Policies that help speed the second tipping point ahead of the first (investments and carbon taxes) are somehow the ramblings of "environmentalists" that are dead on arrival in both chambers of Congress. I guess we should get back to hoping and wishing while we count all that natural gas money.
1. There is a tipping point (exactly when unknown) that carbon emissions will make the climate extremely inhospitable in many places.
2. There is another tipping point (exactly when unknown), clean energy will replace fossil fuels because they will be cheaper.
It all comes down to which event takes place first. Right now, our plan for the greatest potential catastrophe in the history of civilization seems to be to sit back and hope and wish that our planet can take the beating long enough for someone to invent a cheap and reliable source of clean energy. Policies that help speed the second tipping point ahead of the first (investments and carbon taxes) are somehow the ramblings of "environmentalists" that are dead on arrival in both chambers of Congress. I guess we should get back to hoping and wishing while we count all that natural gas money.
4
The second tipping point has already been reached with respect to solar panels and electric power generation.
"“free-market fundamentalist dream that a thriving shale gas industry will make climate policy unnecessary” ", here we see a big part of the problem, semantics. Wouldn't a true free market include all the renewables, as well as the old energy producers? In reality, solar and wind and cold fusion are parts of the free market, and sans the subsidies that big oil and coal get, are probably closer to the "free market fundamentals" we keep hearing about that are supposed to be so important to our system.
But when we read about these different industries it seems assumed that the old energy sources are included in the idea of "free market" while solar and wind etc., are some kind of commie plot.
Take away subsidies from the profitable oil and gas world and give them to the emerging markets of solar and wind and then we can talk about "free markets".
But when we read about these different industries it seems assumed that the old energy sources are included in the idea of "free market" while solar and wind etc., are some kind of commie plot.
Take away subsidies from the profitable oil and gas world and give them to the emerging markets of solar and wind and then we can talk about "free markets".
4
Levi may well be right that fracking can be accomplished prudently and safely with the enactment and enforcement of effective state and federal regulations. The problem is that the industry's most strident backers are fiercely anti-regulation, as evidenced most recently by the wave of industry-sponsored state legislation barring municipalities from regulating the practice on a local level. The fact is that private corporations will always seek out ways to cut corners in pursuit of higher profits. The industry simply cannot be trusted to regulate itself.
2
Why is the word "nuclear" absent from this column? Political correctness?
Nuclear energy is zero carbon emissions. The total energy produced over the life of an existing nuclear power plant approaches 3 times more energy than it took to built it originally.
While I have a rooftop full of solar panels and am almost net zero annually for the past 3-4 years, nuclear should not be excluded from the energy mix. It's technology has come a long way the past two decades. What is missing is political will and hard analysis of future such power plants.
Finally, if you think fracking is bad, wait until the permafrost warms up due to ever increasing global temperatures.
Nuclear energy is zero carbon emissions. The total energy produced over the life of an existing nuclear power plant approaches 3 times more energy than it took to built it originally.
While I have a rooftop full of solar panels and am almost net zero annually for the past 3-4 years, nuclear should not be excluded from the energy mix. It's technology has come a long way the past two decades. What is missing is political will and hard analysis of future such power plants.
Finally, if you think fracking is bad, wait until the permafrost warms up due to ever increasing global temperatures.
3
Nuclear is not off the table, it's just REALLY expensive, even of you discount (i.e., make taxpayers pay for) decommissioning and waste storage (which we haven't figured out yet).
It's only good for base load (you can't really throttle back a nuclear reactor), which we are needing less and less of as storage and demand management ramp up...
It's only good for base load (you can't really throttle back a nuclear reactor), which we are needing less and less of as storage and demand management ramp up...
Mr. Nocera and Readers: Today's discussion takes a longer term approach to energy supplies. However, in the recent past, when petroleum breached $140 a barrel, the supply curve for petroleum became so inelastic that it was almost a vertical line at key pricing points after peak production was reached. In other words, the supply curve slope, as measured by its rise (Price change)-- which increases very rapidly-- over its run (Quantity change)-- which hardly changes with peak production--; could be estimated by dividing a large price change by no change in quantity, or zero; which equals positive infinity. To buy time for the development of alternatives and to prevent the economic disruptions driven by the extreme price volatility that can occur when peak production is reached, that is, when the supply of petroleum can no longer be increased, then alternative energy sources help to relieve the extreme shortages that can occur after maximum production from traditional drilling is reached. In the shorter run, alternative energy sources act to marginally flatten the supply curve for energy-- which makes it more elastic -- and as a result petroleum's price becomes more stable during periods of a thriving global economy and the resultant post peak production. [Tuesday, July 14, 2015, 1:50 p.m.]
Fracking is good for the economy? Whose economy? Gas and oil are our collective good, but the economic benefit is primarily going to those who already have more than enough. Take the profit from our shared resources and put it towards insuring that we have a future. Then get back to me on how it is good for the economy and the environment.
Also, tell us how we will turn the poisoned water back in to clean water. I do hope it is easier than spinning gold from straw.
Also, tell us how we will turn the poisoned water back in to clean water. I do hope it is easier than spinning gold from straw.
1
One interesting repercussion of the current glut of natural gas in the US is that
we are seeing companies return manufacturing operations that are energy intensive from Asia.
US natural gas prices are one fourth of European rates and are one fifth of Asian rates.
Superbly managed General Electric has moved its appliance manufacturing operations from China back to Louisville.
It is critical that we revisit current restrictions on the exports of petroleum products. While we should not support oppressive regimes, removing current restrictions could do wonders for the US economy and counteract the propensity of Russia to use its petroleum resources to manipulate the economies of European countries.
we are seeing companies return manufacturing operations that are energy intensive from Asia.
US natural gas prices are one fourth of European rates and are one fifth of Asian rates.
Superbly managed General Electric has moved its appliance manufacturing operations from China back to Louisville.
It is critical that we revisit current restrictions on the exports of petroleum products. While we should not support oppressive regimes, removing current restrictions could do wonders for the US economy and counteract the propensity of Russia to use its petroleum resources to manipulate the economies of European countries.
The bottom line is that we've got to stop burning stuff -- oil, coal, gas, wood, whatever -- as soon as possible. Although weaning ourselves from Middle East oil clearly has geopolitical benefits, fracking is not the only way to achieve that goal, and should not be our only goal for setting energy policy.
We need a moonshot-like national effort to reinvent our energy sources, infrastructure, and conservation habits. You want to talk about true geopolitical stability, or about job creation, or about saving the environment for future generations? Researching, developing, and implementing alternative energy sources and the kind of decentralized energy distribution infrastructure that would make renewables more practical would go a long way in addressing all of those issues.
There's plenty of money to be made and jobs that could be created in building a decentralized energy infrastructure based on renewable technology. The trouble is, that money and those jobs would flow to people other than those who currently control the levers of politics and influence.
We need a moonshot-like national effort to reinvent our energy sources, infrastructure, and conservation habits. You want to talk about true geopolitical stability, or about job creation, or about saving the environment for future generations? Researching, developing, and implementing alternative energy sources and the kind of decentralized energy distribution infrastructure that would make renewables more practical would go a long way in addressing all of those issues.
There's plenty of money to be made and jobs that could be created in building a decentralized energy infrastructure based on renewable technology. The trouble is, that money and those jobs would flow to people other than those who currently control the levers of politics and influence.
4
Mr. Nocera:
this is a too-quick quibble with a very dense subject:
however,
in reviewing your summary from Mr. Levi,
it strikes me that:
Levi's
“...gives an edge to industries that are heavy energy users and big emitters.”
is the core of the entire "energy-problem":
we americans simply consume too much energy while editing too much junk.
converting our electric motors,
improving transportation choices,
insulating structures,
making power-available at the source of the need,
( instead of moving it across thousands of miles of resistance ),
re-designing and re-building our infrastructures with a focus on renewable
materials,
and many other ideas and suggestions,
are the only means by which to make significant, meaningful alterations to our all-consuming economic model.
with or without fracking,
our current path is completely unsustainable, immoral,
and impossible to replicate across the entire globe.
other species have come and gone through the eons of time,
mostly through no active errors of commission or omission on their part;
we humans, however, have created a self-destructive force all of our
own making.
we are all spineless if we do not accept these very harsh "facts"
and then refuse to act to care for mother earth instead of
destroying her abundance.
4
Flacked-up natural gas is a godsend to US but a few facts prior to all the emotional evil hate; GE's new Utility turbines are 60+% efficient then add wasteheat recovery and combined cycle NG generation efficiency is 75% - 80% efficient. That also means far less surface water used than coal as well as far less CO2. Then open your minds enough to consider that solar PV responds to Morse's Law also so solar cell prices and efficiency is improving which should encourage an adequate carbon tax which would further accelerate development BUT keep in mind that there are billions of people in the India, etc., that don't have access to reliable power so their demand will outstrip ours for many years as solar PV production is ramped up so coal generation is currently being replaced by NG even in KY.
The main fact always missing from Nocera's pro fracking columns is that a 75 dollar barrel of oil contains only about 2 megawatt hours of energy. That equivalence number is the key piece to comparing the cost of solar electricity vs fossil fuel electricity.
Photovoltaics now cost a dollar per watt and
last 40 years and so produce 2 megawatt hours for only 25 dollars one third the cost of oil.
Plus we will never have to invade the sun to secure our future energy, Solar is already here, distributed for free to every acre of the US, for nothing.
Simply covering every garage in the US with solar panels would supply all the energy we need for transportation. The cost would be the defense budget for a decade.
So what, we wont need the war department if we are not invading the mideast for oil anymore. It all works out if you just remember the 2 megawatt hours per barrel of oil number.
Photovoltaics now cost a dollar per watt and
last 40 years and so produce 2 megawatt hours for only 25 dollars one third the cost of oil.
Plus we will never have to invade the sun to secure our future energy, Solar is already here, distributed for free to every acre of the US, for nothing.
Simply covering every garage in the US with solar panels would supply all the energy we need for transportation. The cost would be the defense budget for a decade.
So what, we wont need the war department if we are not invading the mideast for oil anymore. It all works out if you just remember the 2 megawatt hours per barrel of oil number.
5
Solar sure looks great but, what do we do if we're primarily solar between sunst and sunrise?
Joe gives a nod to "the methane problem". But It's more of a problem than he thinks. Fugitive methane emissions and the potent greenhouse effect of those emissions are indeed enough to make natural gas equally as bad as coal from a climate change point of view. Further, Joe understates the rapid cost decreases in renewable energy, especially solar, that will soon make renewables competitive with fossil fuels, without even factoring in the implicit cost of greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, some subsidies will be required -- far less than the tax subsidies to fossil fuels over the last 50 years. Finally, Joe repeats the conventional wisdom that fracking has been a key source of economic growth as if it were received wisdom from on high. In fact, actual jobs created are a small fraction of what government and industry claim. And if you factor in the health and other community costs of fracking that are ignored in most analyses, it is not at all clear that fracking has generated a net ecoomic benefit.
9
In his earnest approach to the appearance of maintaining rhetorical balance, and his deference to important dudes with important titles, this writer tends to forget a lot of important details. Oklahomans who somehow escaped the consequences of their state's dedication to illiteracy will notice that he forgot earthquakes.
2
There you go again. How about you listen to a variety of top scientists instead of choosing one:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatolog...
"Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it"
It is ill done to go beyond your knowledge here to promote further use of extreme fossil. Yes, we know, natural gas is currently in use and reasonable people can agree it's an improvement over dirty coal. But that's no excuse for claiming it is not necessary to work as hard as we can to stop using every form of fossil, especially the ill accounted product of fracking with its concomitant poorly accounted liabilities. There is the boom and bust that is wrecking communities, with its three year optimization, the socialization of risk and privatization of profit, the water problems, and the earthquakes which are increasing at an alarming rate. There are the methane leaks and the inability to hold industry accountable for them. There is the push for deregulation on every front.
What you appear to fail to take into account is that we are rapidly blowing past any reasonable target and ignoring the consequences. The arguments you promote ignore the political effort to promote fossil over all, and devil take the hindmost.
You are being exploited by industry to say that since change is too difficult, we can let the future go to hell.
This is not OK. Time to wake up.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatolog...
"Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it"
It is ill done to go beyond your knowledge here to promote further use of extreme fossil. Yes, we know, natural gas is currently in use and reasonable people can agree it's an improvement over dirty coal. But that's no excuse for claiming it is not necessary to work as hard as we can to stop using every form of fossil, especially the ill accounted product of fracking with its concomitant poorly accounted liabilities. There is the boom and bust that is wrecking communities, with its three year optimization, the socialization of risk and privatization of profit, the water problems, and the earthquakes which are increasing at an alarming rate. There are the methane leaks and the inability to hold industry accountable for them. There is the push for deregulation on every front.
What you appear to fail to take into account is that we are rapidly blowing past any reasonable target and ignoring the consequences. The arguments you promote ignore the political effort to promote fossil over all, and devil take the hindmost.
You are being exploited by industry to say that since change is too difficult, we can let the future go to hell.
This is not OK. Time to wake up.
10
One of the greatest dangers of using natural gas is that it will slow down our eventual change to non-fossil fuels as energy sources. We will be lulled into thinking that a less-polluting energy source is a panacea for climate change.
35
Until the storage problem for renewables is solved, they won't be a viable replacement for base load. Current storage tech uses way too many toxic materials for it to scale.
Mr. Nocera overlooks the impact of fracking on increasingly scarce water. It uses a great deal of water, shoots it into the ground where it pollutes groundwater reserves, and leaves it polluted and unusable. There's no substitute for water, which we need to live. We can live without fracking.
4
Mr. Nocera, your readers have more data than your consultant, Mr. Levi. In addition, it should be said, that your opinion piece is about the economy, not climate change. Fugitive emissions from natural gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing level the emissions grounds with coal mining while also wasting water. In the west, this practice deals a double dose of damage. Uncertainty about impacts on groundwater everywhere make this practice a hidden endgame. Please connect the dots before you claim a high ground of pragmatism.
8
It occurs to me that the energy industry is it;s own worst enemy. I wonder what our emissions problem's would look like "IF" the energy industry, INSTEAD of spending money on Lawyers, Lobbyists, Law suits, Political donations they had spent some REAL money on techology that would have reduced polution, made containment safer, and protected the environment? Oh wait the Koch boys and their friends can't waste money on things like that can they, sorry I asked.
4
Joe Nocera is comparing an unquestionably better solution to the status quo. Why doesn't he specify an ideal solution to the problem and do a cost/benefit comparison to the "better" solution? The latter comparison would be far more useful to the reader.
3
And on the very same day that Mr. Nocera derides environmentalists for their "hyperbole" on climate change comes a new report from 60 experts representing 11 countries, which concludes that:
Governments should treat climate change as seriously as threats to national security or public health...Crop failures, extreme heat waves or high rates of sea level rise could be so harmful that governments should examine even small chances of the most severe impacts.
Sounds like more hyperbole to me.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/uk-climatechange-risks-idUKKCN0...
Governments should treat climate change as seriously as threats to national security or public health...Crop failures, extreme heat waves or high rates of sea level rise could be so harmful that governments should examine even small chances of the most severe impacts.
Sounds like more hyperbole to me.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/uk-climatechange-risks-idUKKCN0...
6
Fracking uses a lot of water mixed with noxious chemicals, and here in CA we are all on strict water rationing. In the great central valley of our state a huge portion of our table food is produced, and farmers are starved for enough water to irrigate. Many have allowed fields to lie farrow and dig up dead fruit and nut trees because of the acute shortage of water. Most of us find it a no brainer to dislike fracking and this use of our precious water.
66
The only truly viable way to reduce carbon footprint and promote energy conservation and reduction is through extensive population control. There are only two ways out of this mess: help ease the global population back down under 5 billion or accelerate the growth and consumption until we can no longer live on Earth. Any family with more than two kids is deliberately increasing the global population, and needs to be told as much. The motto "two are replaced with one" will need to be a global demand. You might not like it, but just look closely at all the facts. It's either that or if everyone says "but I'll have six" then eventually it's Soylent Green.
5
"And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, it is here to stay." Mr. Nocera doesn't seem to be aware of the fundamentals of shale gas drilling. These wells are very short-lived and very expensive. The reason the industry hasn't been able to shut in wells and stop drilling is that the wells deplete so fast, and are so expensive. Thus each new well is the basis for financing the next, either through equity, bonds or stocks. It is well-known that gas drillers are on a 'drilling treadmill,' trying to stave off a financial dive (see "The Tyee – Ailing Shale Gas Returns Force a 'Drilling Treadmill'", http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/27/Shale-Gas-Drilling-Treadmill/
The shale plays are the bottom of the hydrocarbon fuels barrel, and they are being scraped clean as fast as possible. Don't make the mistake that today's market glut is a sign of the depth of that barrel. It is a sign of something resembling Alice's with the Red Queen, in which one has to run as fast as possible just to stay in place. In fact, that is exactly the metaphor used by some oil drilling industry observers use (see "Will the Bakken 'Red Queen' Have to Run Faster? | The Oil Drum", http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10102).
The same holds for well depletion in shale gas plays. The Marcellus shale play production is predicted to peak about this time next year.
The shale plays are the bottom of the hydrocarbon fuels barrel, and they are being scraped clean as fast as possible. Don't make the mistake that today's market glut is a sign of the depth of that barrel. It is a sign of something resembling Alice's with the Red Queen, in which one has to run as fast as possible just to stay in place. In fact, that is exactly the metaphor used by some oil drilling industry observers use (see "Will the Bakken 'Red Queen' Have to Run Faster? | The Oil Drum", http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10102).
The same holds for well depletion in shale gas plays. The Marcellus shale play production is predicted to peak about this time next year.
5
Well put, Dwain.
1
The other natural resource that is more important than oil is water. While we mine for shale gas we taint our fresh water sources. The economic benefits from this current boom may be short-sighted. In the long run, alternatives will prevail, and fresh water will be the "oil" we mine for. So, it seems to me, mining for shale takes us one step forward, two steps back.
5
Yes, fracking has its problems. So does that nice, 'clean', carbon-free nuclear power industry, if and when (emphasis on the latter) things go wrong. But what's worse than either? Being held hostage to those wonderful people in a certain other part of this sun-orbiting rock, including the lovely folks who brought us 9-11. Or a government that decides to take such an extreme over-reactive position that we end up basically on lifelong modified house arrest, restricted (by either huge taxes or out-and-out heavy-handed enforcement tactics) from going anywhere but work, school and - of course - the gym. (Trips to the doctor? Perhaps THAT will depend on just how compliant you've been.)
Serious solar research? Of course, like anyone else who's remotely rational, I'm all for it. But lifelong extreme regimentation for all based on, let's face it, dogma from people who have absolutely no way of knowing just what's caused all those many epochs of climate change that happened long before humans were on the scene? No thank you.
Serious solar research? Of course, like anyone else who's remotely rational, I'm all for it. But lifelong extreme regimentation for all based on, let's face it, dogma from people who have absolutely no way of knowing just what's caused all those many epochs of climate change that happened long before humans were on the scene? No thank you.
1
The basic research that led to solar photovoltaic devices was done in the U.S. So was the production technology. Yet other nations are far ahead of its implementation, while many American commentators sit making arguments such as yours, Mr. Grossness54. But take a look at how the U.S. solar power industry is coming up to speed: solar cells and solar panel prices are plunging in the face of continuing technological development: "Solar Energy Prices See Double-digit Declines in 2013; Trend Expected to Continue'PV pricing to drop another 3 – 12 percent in 2014", http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/15405.html
Actually the 'dogma people' have lots of lines of evidence as to just what caused all those many epochs of climate change that happened long before humans were on the scene. I guess they know more than you thought they did.
Enough with the stupid framing tricks. Everyone else is stupid, and only I, in the reasonable center know true wisdom. C'mon. The real story is pretty simple: We need to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix in the next 40 years. We ought to do so in decreasing order of environmental harm. So first stop burning coal, then start to electrify our cars, all the while increasing renewable electrical generation and storage, and decreasing natural gas used for home heating and electrical generation. This is what we're doing, it's a good thing, and we ought to do it faster. There, was that so hard?
8
The "real story" may be pretty simple for know-it-all progressive alarmists, but the vast majority of humanity, us stupid ones according to you, know that massive disruptions of our economic infrastructure would come with enormous costs. Excuse our stupidity if we don't believe that you have a crystal ball that can predict the cataclysms you claim are inevitable. Excuse our stupidity if we don't believe that you progressives have easy solutions for your self-proclaimed catastrophes. Trust you, fat chance.
I would invite you to stand along any source of moving water, be that a tide, a wave, a river or a waterfall and ponder the awesome amount of energy there. Think of the sun as a source of heat and of electrical energy. Consider that while you stand on the ground and are either too hot or too cold, within the earth there is a constant temperature that can either help cool or heat you. That's the future. Coal and natural gas store a lot of energy, but it only replicates what nature already does for us. Environmentalists are just really good engineers and chemists. Fossil burners are just cave men in suits.
7
"And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, it is here to stay." After his attempts to make his argument appear grounded in reason, Mr. Nocera delivers his message. He frames the issue as incomprehensible "environmentalists" versus pragmatic realists such as himself and the industries he represents. He states as a hard fact the highly dubious thought he wants to implant. He is wrong. Nothing humans make or do is "here to stay." We need to stop the war on nature promoted by Mr. Nocera and so many others. We will learn to put nature first, or she'll put us last, as Wendell Berry has pointed out.
12
what use is building a bridge to renewables, if nobody is making any policies to cross it?
what good is the bridge to nowhere, if an ever larger human population, demanding ever greater economic growth as the path to prosperity, continue to splurge on non renewable resources?
until we can find economic security in the actual process of building a sustainable society, not simply in our energy generation but in our transport, communications, agricultural, habitation, manufacturing and retail infrastructures, we are just deluding ourselves about where our species is headed.
what good is the bridge to nowhere, if an ever larger human population, demanding ever greater economic growth as the path to prosperity, continue to splurge on non renewable resources?
until we can find economic security in the actual process of building a sustainable society, not simply in our energy generation but in our transport, communications, agricultural, habitation, manufacturing and retail infrastructures, we are just deluding ourselves about where our species is headed.
6
For me, Joe's reasons for shale has gas being a blessing are telling; energy security, economic boon and - well, it's here to stay, face it.
The fracking boom, both gas and oil fracking, IS here to stay, but maybe not because it's a blessing - more likely because the industry has paid a lot of PR people to make sure it stays.
Claiming it's a bridge fuel to a renewable future is one reason it's staying. The claim is a farce. No disrespect to Levi or Nocera, but they should have done their homework. In March the National Petrolium Council, an advisory group set up in the Truman era, reported to the DoE that shale gas had maybe a decade or so left and we need to start working on drilling in the arctic so we have steady production in 20 years.
The fossil fuel industry has no desire to switch, obviously, and has convonced US government planners that by 2040 renewables will account for just 13% of our energy use, with fossil fuels making up 80%.
We have a carbon budget - did you not get the memo? Shale gas addicts us to a future of fossil fuels with no plan for a switch. That's lights out for this species - we take that carbon budget out of the ground and the resulting warming will destroy our societies.
It's not a hard concept - but when an industry owns governance, logic and reason don't rule the nation, the industry does.
And "aptly regulate" is a joke told by those who havn't been paying attention. This industry successfully fights regulation at every turn.
The fracking boom, both gas and oil fracking, IS here to stay, but maybe not because it's a blessing - more likely because the industry has paid a lot of PR people to make sure it stays.
Claiming it's a bridge fuel to a renewable future is one reason it's staying. The claim is a farce. No disrespect to Levi or Nocera, but they should have done their homework. In March the National Petrolium Council, an advisory group set up in the Truman era, reported to the DoE that shale gas had maybe a decade or so left and we need to start working on drilling in the arctic so we have steady production in 20 years.
The fossil fuel industry has no desire to switch, obviously, and has convonced US government planners that by 2040 renewables will account for just 13% of our energy use, with fossil fuels making up 80%.
We have a carbon budget - did you not get the memo? Shale gas addicts us to a future of fossil fuels with no plan for a switch. That's lights out for this species - we take that carbon budget out of the ground and the resulting warming will destroy our societies.
It's not a hard concept - but when an industry owns governance, logic and reason don't rule the nation, the industry does.
And "aptly regulate" is a joke told by those who havn't been paying attention. This industry successfully fights regulation at every turn.
12
There are several realities at play.
Climate change accelerated by fossil fuels is a slow-motion train wreck in progress.
The US will continue to want more energy. The rest of the world, even more so. Conservation is ideal but insufficient. So are renewables, unfortunately.
Since Korea, our foreign policy and war debacles have energy politics at their core. These entanglements have fueled a significant enmity that has security consequences for us. We are on the wrong side of history in much of the world. Our military serves as a mercenary army for energy companies - at considerable expense and increased risk to us all.
Natural gas is here to stay, for a lot of very good reasons. Fracking is highly problematic as currently practiced. There needs to be significant improvement in minimizing and mitigating environmental consequences.
We need
-attenuated energy demand
-more renewable sources
-more local energy sources
-more environmentally safe means of energy production - greenhouse and fracking need vast improvements
-less reliance on, and interference with a tribal Middle East based on oil politics.
Any energy policies that choose one or two of these at the expense of the rest are doomed to failure.
Good thinking, Mr. Levi
Climate change accelerated by fossil fuels is a slow-motion train wreck in progress.
The US will continue to want more energy. The rest of the world, even more so. Conservation is ideal but insufficient. So are renewables, unfortunately.
Since Korea, our foreign policy and war debacles have energy politics at their core. These entanglements have fueled a significant enmity that has security consequences for us. We are on the wrong side of history in much of the world. Our military serves as a mercenary army for energy companies - at considerable expense and increased risk to us all.
Natural gas is here to stay, for a lot of very good reasons. Fracking is highly problematic as currently practiced. There needs to be significant improvement in minimizing and mitigating environmental consequences.
We need
-attenuated energy demand
-more renewable sources
-more local energy sources
-more environmentally safe means of energy production - greenhouse and fracking need vast improvements
-less reliance on, and interference with a tribal Middle East based on oil politics.
Any energy policies that choose one or two of these at the expense of the rest are doomed to failure.
Good thinking, Mr. Levi
4
Renewables are improving daily. Germany recently shut down a nuclear power plant in Bavaria because they could make electricity MORE CHEAPLY with wind and solar.
"And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, it is here to stay." Yes Joe, in your lifetime and mine. But gas is a finite resource, meaning that its price eventually will go up as it is depleted. The idea everyone needs to get their heads around is that humans are consuming fossil fuels at a rate that is unsustainable. Accepting that, the prudent course is to vigorously put in place policies that encourage renewable energy development and discourage fossil fuel use, e.g. a tax on emitted (not extracted) carbon.
4
Mr. Nocera's respect for facts is selective. The physics of the greenhouse effect leaves no room for new CO2 emitting infrastructure.
yours
Frank Johnston
http://www.skepticalscience.com/must-stop-new-carbon-infrastructure-2018...
yours
Frank Johnston
http://www.skepticalscience.com/must-stop-new-carbon-infrastructure-2018...
3
"...overall energy policy that is bent on driving down carbon emissions....while straightforwardly addressing [fracking] problems..."
Their is not a "community" out there that believes that's going to happen.
And you wonder why "environmentalists" (i.e. many communities in fracking areas) are "bashing their teeth?"
Their is not a "community" out there that believes that's going to happen.
And you wonder why "environmentalists" (i.e. many communities in fracking areas) are "bashing their teeth?"
2
"...hyperbole that you sometimes hear from environmentalists...And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, [fracking] is here to stay. That’s why the responsible approach is not to wish it away, but to exploit its benefits while straightforwardly addressing its problems"
Oh, those alarmists, always worrying about what sort of world we are leaving for our children and their children. Joe is here to tell us that real liberals love fracking and, above all, they trust the government to address its problems - just as the government addressed the problems with offshore oil drilling after the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
Oh, those alarmists, always worrying about what sort of world we are leaving for our children and their children. Joe is here to tell us that real liberals love fracking and, above all, they trust the government to address its problems - just as the government addressed the problems with offshore oil drilling after the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
6
The word methane appears nowhere Levi's article "Fracking and the Climate Debate" which is like Hamlet without the Prince, or rather Macbeth without the Thane.
Neither Levi nor Nocera recognizes, let alone refutes, the argument by Prof. Ingraffea, who has actually analysed all the available evidence of methane releases from the natural gas fuel cycle: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/gangplank-to-a-warm-future.html
"Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide...over a 20-year period, one pound of it traps as much heat as at least 72 pounds of carbon dioxide. Its potency declines, but even after a century, it is at least 25 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. When burned, natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, but methane leakage eviscerates this advantage because of its heat-trapping power."
Neither Levi nor Nocera recognizes, let alone refutes, the argument by Prof. Ingraffea, who has actually analysed all the available evidence of methane releases from the natural gas fuel cycle: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/gangplank-to-a-warm-future.html
"Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide...over a 20-year period, one pound of it traps as much heat as at least 72 pounds of carbon dioxide. Its potency declines, but even after a century, it is at least 25 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. When burned, natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, but methane leakage eviscerates this advantage because of its heat-trapping power."
5
Ingraffea and Howarth (his colleague) work have been roundly criticized by MIT, NETL, Carnegie Mellon - just to mention a few - as " flawed and unreasonable".
Perhaps if they dropped their activist agenda and pursued a more scholarly approach, we might have a more non-biased discussion of the issue. Fracking may/may not be a reasonable energy option in the future. But the activist tainted research of these two individuals do not progress the discussion, merely cloud and confuse.
Perhaps if they dropped their activist agenda and pursued a more scholarly approach, we might have a more non-biased discussion of the issue. Fracking may/may not be a reasonable energy option in the future. But the activist tainted research of these two individuals do not progress the discussion, merely cloud and confuse.
Aside from the vitally important issues of water (use and contamination), earthquakes, and injected toxins, there are also huge impacts on lifestyles and property values in areas that may suddenly be fracked. Those who live in cities don't seem to think about this. What if a big noisy well, with bright lights all night and a constant stream of huge trucks, was built right next to your house/apartment/property line? That's particularly catastrophic for people who can't afford to have a home's value crash. And the NYT recently published an article about the health effects in a town in (I think) Nevada. If producers were required to cover all these costs, fracking would not yield profits. In other words, it's a LOSER.
5
While I'm an environmentalist,the following points aren't hyperbole;while my household uses a natural gas furnace,our unusually mild,Pacific Northwest summer has allowed us to have the furnace off for more than a month now.But we still burn natural gas every time we use hot water.This is sad because we in the PNW have had so much sun that if we had solar panels on our home as a supplement,at least,we could,in this household ,not be burning ANY natural gas at all,thus not contributing to the emissions of methane,which has twice the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide.Not to mention that solar is now very inexpensive,and will get more so,and the panels have gotten so efficient as to work on overcast days as well.This article is written as if in the belief that there's is still lots of time to entirely wean ourselves off fossil fuel,which-and this is still not hyperbole-which is untrue,which just by opening our eyes to what the climate is doing-again-this summer,we would be able to clearly see.It's not hyperbole to say that many in California can see very clearly how short the time is for us to end our fossil fuel addiction and utilize,completely,the capacity to harness that giant furnace,the sun. Read "Arctic Voices,"edited by Subhankar Banerjee,about what global warming is doing to the the arctic-for instance,twice the rate of warming as here in Earth's temperate zones-if you wish to know why time is so short. No hyperbole in the book,just lots of sobering facts.
9
I have lost all faith in your thinking, Mr Nocera. Please,, NYT, give us writers with more courage and less attachment to appearing "reasonable".
4
Thank you, Mr. Nocera. One of the most balanced and insightful articles I have read on this fraught subject.
Nocera does not touch on two troubling questions: Where does the vast amount of water required for fracking come from? Where does the vast amount of poisonous waste water left over from fracking go?
17
Fraccing uses considerably less water than golf courses; it produces one thousandth of the associated water already produced from existing oil wells.
"...it is still a fossil fuel that will keep us from going all-in on renewable energy..."
How can environmentalists simply ignore the fact that so-called renewable energy sources are still double or triple the cost of natural gas, even after large subsidies? As Bill Gates put it, the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is ‘beyond astronomical.’ Obviously some do so because they see the survival of the earth as the ultimate moral issue, and this justifies forcing even the poorest amongst us to "pay up" for energy. Such moral (though not scientific) certainty must be very comforting. I think its disgraceful.
How can environmentalists simply ignore the fact that so-called renewable energy sources are still double or triple the cost of natural gas, even after large subsidies? As Bill Gates put it, the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is ‘beyond astronomical.’ Obviously some do so because they see the survival of the earth as the ultimate moral issue, and this justifies forcing even the poorest amongst us to "pay up" for energy. Such moral (though not scientific) certainty must be very comforting. I think its disgraceful.
1
What kind of monstrous simulacrum of a human being sees the survival of the earth as an issue of no urgency, as you evidently do? A sensible carbon tax policy would include tax credits to shelter "the poorest among us," as has been proposed repeatedly.
3
Never heard of externalities? The cost of climate change dwarfs the cost of decarbonization no matter what technology--and that is "beyond astronomical". Catastrophe has no pricetag.
3
Joe is like a dog with a bone.
From Bloomberg:
By 2026, utility-scale solar will be competitive for the majority of the world, according to BNEF. The lifetime cost of a photovoltaic solar-power plant will drop by almost half over the next 25 years, even as the prices of fossil fuels creep higher.
From Bloomberg:
By 2026, utility-scale solar will be competitive for the majority of the world, according to BNEF. The lifetime cost of a photovoltaic solar-power plant will drop by almost half over the next 25 years, even as the prices of fossil fuels creep higher.
6
" If the government enacted policies that “reward emission cuts” no matter what technology achieves that goal, then coal users would gravitate to natural gas, while natural gas users might well move toward renewables."
Clean energy programs and economic incentives have been on the Republican hit list ever since Reagan took down Jimmie Carter's White House solar panels, canceled clean energy research programs and practically gave away coal and oil leases on public lands. A more recent Republican target has been the tax incentives that made wind energy viable,
Energy policy is a political issue. If you care about it, vote accordingly.
Clean energy programs and economic incentives have been on the Republican hit list ever since Reagan took down Jimmie Carter's White House solar panels, canceled clean energy research programs and practically gave away coal and oil leases on public lands. A more recent Republican target has been the tax incentives that made wind energy viable,
Energy policy is a political issue. If you care about it, vote accordingly.
6
Mr. Nocera, you haven't addressed the main reasons that environmentalists oppose natural gas:
1) Benzene and other carcinogens injected into the land and waterways.
2) Massive water usage
3) Seismic disruptions such as sinkholes and earthquakes
For a glimpse of what abandoned wells in the future may look like, simply look at all the abandoned gold mines in California that still contain mercury and continue to pollute lakes and streams, endangering people and wildlife and making fresh water undrinkable.
I've been reading your columns on this topic for years now, and as far as I've seen, you've never once addressed these issues, which are at least as important as the dangerous and polluting methane leaks you've mentioned.
Please use your future columns to address the totality of environmental concerns.
1) Benzene and other carcinogens injected into the land and waterways.
2) Massive water usage
3) Seismic disruptions such as sinkholes and earthquakes
For a glimpse of what abandoned wells in the future may look like, simply look at all the abandoned gold mines in California that still contain mercury and continue to pollute lakes and streams, endangering people and wildlife and making fresh water undrinkable.
I've been reading your columns on this topic for years now, and as far as I've seen, you've never once addressed these issues, which are at least as important as the dangerous and polluting methane leaks you've mentioned.
Please use your future columns to address the totality of environmental concerns.
108
Thank you. Exactly right.
Leaving the most important problems out of the discussion is the purpose of Mr. Nocera's work. As you say, he's had years to address these problems. The same thing happens when you have others, such as the New York Times editorial board, promote nuclear energy while completely ignoring the problem of waste disposal. It is hard to believe that a thinking adult isn't aware of these problems. These problems are vitally important, and the arguments of those in favor of the war on nature are filled with evasion and riddled with omissions.
1
Benzene etc is in the reservoir, not injected in the frac fluid.
Burning the produced gas generates more fresh clean virgin new water than is used in fraccing the well.
There has been no association of fraccing or wells with sinkholes; the association with earthquakes is postulated to be with injected waste-water, which is 99.9% NOT from fraccing, but from regular oil production.
Joe Nocera's column is good.
Burning the produced gas generates more fresh clean virgin new water than is used in fraccing the well.
There has been no association of fraccing or wells with sinkholes; the association with earthquakes is postulated to be with injected waste-water, which is 99.9% NOT from fraccing, but from regular oil production.
Joe Nocera's column is good.
Better than a look at natural gas is a look at carbon fee and dividend. Maybe that will make it into a future Nocera column:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
1
So Mr. Nocera, are you perfectly willing to have a fracking well drilled right next to your home?
Your answer, please, before you write any more of your high-road columns.
Your answer, please, before you write any more of your high-road columns.
3
I guess Oklahoma earthquakes & Pennsylvania water contamination aren't part of the trade-off equation.
2
If you have space in the NYT to write about climate change, here are some other excellent resources to mention (besides Michael Levi).
The British government led the development of an online calculator that allows one to see various solutions for reaching the 2°C target of international negotiations. It's a fantastic tool:
http://globalcalculator.org/using-calculator/why-use-calculator
It could provide plenty of material for future columns. It would be great for a team at the NYT to submit a demo pathway and then explain it to readers.
Note that 2°C does not protect us against significant sea level rise in the long term, but at least it's a start. (By this map, in a project developed by the NYT and Climate Central, water laps against the current NYT building on 8th Ave:
http://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#14/40.7509/-73.9970)
And rather than just isolating fracking as an issue, consider the entire investment structure of the economy. As Robert Socolow points out in the piece below: "We’ve been hiding what’s going on from ourselves: A high-carbon future is being locked in by the world’s capital investments.”
http://theleap.thischangeseverything.org/a-hard-deadline-we-must-stop-bu...
Reasons to accelerate one's thinking are described here
The British government led the development of an online calculator that allows one to see various solutions for reaching the 2°C target of international negotiations. It's a fantastic tool:
http://globalcalculator.org/using-calculator/why-use-calculator
It could provide plenty of material for future columns. It would be great for a team at the NYT to submit a demo pathway and then explain it to readers.
Note that 2°C does not protect us against significant sea level rise in the long term, but at least it's a start. (By this map, in a project developed by the NYT and Climate Central, water laps against the current NYT building on 8th Ave:
http://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#14/40.7509/-73.9970)
And rather than just isolating fracking as an issue, consider the entire investment structure of the economy. As Robert Socolow points out in the piece below: "We’ve been hiding what’s going on from ourselves: A high-carbon future is being locked in by the world’s capital investments.”
http://theleap.thischangeseverything.org/a-hard-deadline-we-must-stop-bu...
Reasons to accelerate one's thinking are described here
3
Starting a rant with a logical fallacy: " Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Levi believes in the power of facts."
Concluding with: "My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons"....among them is your portfolio?
Between shale gas and tobacco Nocera has carved a niche of self-interest second only to his willingness to overlook the obvious harm done.
Levi believes in the power of facts."
Concluding with: "My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons"....among them is your portfolio?
Between shale gas and tobacco Nocera has carved a niche of self-interest second only to his willingness to overlook the obvious harm done.
5
Very reasonable arguments - Question - what are 'zero based emissions' ?
Most commenters here spew the same tired alarmist arguments, there is some name calling -- one commenter called Nocera an idiot -- several others blamed the oil and gas industry for buying off pols and keeping us from living in the blissful eden of renewable energy -- and on and on.
Underlying this is the belief that climate is changing when in fact, there is little real science underpinning that view. It's a nice religion, but it isn't science because it fails the falsifiability test. You can neither prove nor disprove anthropogenic climate change. This is particularly true when alarmists admit any extreme weather event as "evidence" for their beliefs and when the predicted "disaster" is set to occur sometime in the future.
One believer commented that computer models aren't sophisticated enough to determine when our climate will reach the point of no return. Yet people believe these computer models are infallible in their doomsday projections.
Solar & wind are dead end technologies, and they aren't free from either an environmental or economic perspective. Do you really want zillions of acres turned over to wind farms and solar panels on every roof and still require carbon energy sources to make everything work?
I propose 2 things: 1) Go Nuclear 2) make carbon fuels as clean as possible. And let's track temps -- they've been flat for 20 years and I'll bet in 2050 we won't have seen change outside normal variation.
Underlying this is the belief that climate is changing when in fact, there is little real science underpinning that view. It's a nice religion, but it isn't science because it fails the falsifiability test. You can neither prove nor disprove anthropogenic climate change. This is particularly true when alarmists admit any extreme weather event as "evidence" for their beliefs and when the predicted "disaster" is set to occur sometime in the future.
One believer commented that computer models aren't sophisticated enough to determine when our climate will reach the point of no return. Yet people believe these computer models are infallible in their doomsday projections.
Solar & wind are dead end technologies, and they aren't free from either an environmental or economic perspective. Do you really want zillions of acres turned over to wind farms and solar panels on every roof and still require carbon energy sources to make everything work?
I propose 2 things: 1) Go Nuclear 2) make carbon fuels as clean as possible. And let's track temps -- they've been flat for 20 years and I'll bet in 2050 we won't have seen change outside normal variation.
1
I don't know who is right about climate change but I am certain about who is wrong: those who deny absolutely that it is not happening and could not be happening. Further, I also understand that by the time we obtain the proof they demand, it will be too late to take any effective action. The deniers will still be in business when Collins Avenue on Miami Beach is under 4 ft. of water.
This issue was picked up by the far right as one that provides endless opportunities for obstructionism and mockery of those who believe we have some collective and individual responsibility for what happens to the world around us.
This issue was picked up by the far right as one that provides endless opportunities for obstructionism and mockery of those who believe we have some collective and individual responsibility for what happens to the world around us.
2
There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gas warming caused by elvated Co2 levels will warm the planet and cause massive climate disruption - the IPCC reports are based om 30K + of the most recent studies and reports on the science behind this waming.
It's good to note though, most pro-fracking supporters do not beleive in climate science.
It's good to note though, most pro-fracking supporters do not beleive in climate science.
1
Where to start with this? "Let's track temps." We've been doing that for some time, Ralphie, and the people who have done so are those warning about climate change. Simply because you don't like their conclusions doesn't mean you can dismiss them. Do you have any training or expertise in this area, or are you another laymen afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect?
1
Mr. Nocera has found someone he believes in so what Mr. Levi says are "facts". There is so much that is ignored here. Disruption of communities? What is that? What about the environmental damage that is done? What about the chemicals that are used in the process. What short term thinking this is. What about the water that is used in this process. Think California, not totally but it's part of the equation. Oh, that's just hyperbole from environmentalists! Talk about a one sided article.
4
@Elliot, the article is especially one sided if you didn't read it.
What about the DARK DEAL going in in our government right now. The congress is about to send a dark deal to sell out the American people and the bees and the land that we now see as pristine farm land as a barren waste land.
They are making a deal with the devil (monsanto) to remove all GMO labels from our food supply. They are circumventing the American people and our government which is suppose to be Of the People, By the People and For the People. We are NOT for the Rich Corporations, By the Rich Corporations, and BY the Rich Corporations.
It is proven that when a bee comes in contact with weed killer and any kind of bug defense that they die off. All chemical companies are killing the bees....
When the bees are gone we, people, will not survive a corporation will be the last to survive but without people.
They are making a deal with the devil (monsanto) to remove all GMO labels from our food supply. They are circumventing the American people and our government which is suppose to be Of the People, By the People and For the People. We are NOT for the Rich Corporations, By the Rich Corporations, and BY the Rich Corporations.
It is proven that when a bee comes in contact with weed killer and any kind of bug defense that they die off. All chemical companies are killing the bees....
When the bees are gone we, people, will not survive a corporation will be the last to survive but without people.
3
there is some middle ground between Joe and DMATH below, which should be explored. The main point is to get coal out- ASAP- a problem when the SENATE is controlled by a Kentuckian
as dependent on the coal industry as Lindsay Graham is on right wing extremists.
The D's have their own sets of problems, but GOPers, currently, stand out for the multiplicity of their nut cases: anarchists, neo-cons, zealots, bigots, secessionists.
And because this is one of those rare monuments when D's have most of the good facts, the GOP is left to resort to lies and rhetoric- something all pols do when necessary.
as dependent on the coal industry as Lindsay Graham is on right wing extremists.
The D's have their own sets of problems, but GOPers, currently, stand out for the multiplicity of their nut cases: anarchists, neo-cons, zealots, bigots, secessionists.
And because this is one of those rare monuments when D's have most of the good facts, the GOP is left to resort to lies and rhetoric- something all pols do when necessary.
1
Mr. Nocera (once too many times I have observed in his columns) does not get all of the facts before he writes.
The principal issue about "shale gas" is that the Oil and Gas industry used its tremendous lobbying power to get it out of the EPA regulatory reach. Not that such reach alone answers all concerns but it creates one whose effects in many states such as PA has been obvious: roughshod work, pollution and environmental waste.
I fully support Gov. Cuomo's stand on NYS moratorium on drilling for shale gas. In part because as a property owner on one of NYS beautiful lakes it would break both my heart and my bank to have it wrecked. Which seems all the more likely when such practices remain out of regulatory reach.
Mr. Nocera, cto elebrate "shale gas" when you have nothing personal at stake is easy. Not understanding fundamentals about why there is resistance is sloppy. As a NYT opinion writer, you should be able to do better than that.
The principal issue about "shale gas" is that the Oil and Gas industry used its tremendous lobbying power to get it out of the EPA regulatory reach. Not that such reach alone answers all concerns but it creates one whose effects in many states such as PA has been obvious: roughshod work, pollution and environmental waste.
I fully support Gov. Cuomo's stand on NYS moratorium on drilling for shale gas. In part because as a property owner on one of NYS beautiful lakes it would break both my heart and my bank to have it wrecked. Which seems all the more likely when such practices remain out of regulatory reach.
Mr. Nocera, cto elebrate "shale gas" when you have nothing personal at stake is easy. Not understanding fundamentals about why there is resistance is sloppy. As a NYT opinion writer, you should be able to do better than that.
4
Surprised you didn't mention the national security aspect, particularly when you are sighting a source from the CFR. We've lost thousands of young lives in the middle east partly to protect the oil supply there. U.S. Natural gas produced by fracking has greatly reduced our dependence on foreign oil. I think we should go a step further to reduce our dependency and put a carbon tax in place. This would also help counter Bad Vlad Putin .
One of the major points that everyone seems to be missing, including Mr. Levi, is this: a huge portion of the U.S. economy is built around the by-products of oil & natural gas (yes, including fracking) development. If we snapped our fingers today and said, "from this day forward, the U.S. will no longer use fossil fuels and will only use renewable energy," the U.S. would literally be in the dark, much like North Korea is today. Further, we would have no asphalt for roads, no petrochemicals that are used in making plastics, no jet fuel for commercial jets. And perhaps more importantly, no baseload electricity to power our homes, businesses, and schools. Now, that to me is a scary thought.
Mark Robinson, PhD
Executive Director
Americans for Fossil Fuels
Mark Robinson, PhD
Executive Director
Americans for Fossil Fuels
1
No sustainable biosystem for organisms now inhabiting Earth is A Scary Thought. That's where we headed by continuing to use fossil fuels.
No one is asking to end fossil fuel use in one day. That's silly. If we do not switch in a reasonable time period - even 20 - 30 years, we doom all future generations.
That's why smart Americans are not for a fossil fuel future. Neither should you be, sir, No paycheck will cover the shame of dooming the planet so a few in this generation can continue to profit in the short run.
That's why smart Americans are not for a fossil fuel future. Neither should you be, sir, No paycheck will cover the shame of dooming the planet so a few in this generation can continue to profit in the short run.
An even scarier thought is if the United States doesn't transition off fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are like methamphetamine. A tremendous high that you want to last forever. But we know it can't last forever. It's better to plan a reasonable transition to renewables in order to avoid going cold turkey and risking social and political collapse later.
Yes fossil fuels are good for the economy, they have multiplier effects, etc. and lowering our fossil fuel consumption will be economically painful. That's why it's better to be truthful about it, and plan ahead. Americans for Fossil Fuels would have us go blindly forward and simply trust that "market forces" will take care of everything. Sorry, I believe in reality, not fantasy.
Yes fossil fuels are good for the economy, they have multiplier effects, etc. and lowering our fossil fuel consumption will be economically painful. That's why it's better to be truthful about it, and plan ahead. Americans for Fossil Fuels would have us go blindly forward and simply trust that "market forces" will take care of everything. Sorry, I believe in reality, not fantasy.
1
In a way, Nocera is telling German leaders that trying to rest on not damaging energy is crazy. A lack of pragmatism.
1
“That’s why the responsible approach is not to wish it away, but to exploit its benefits while straightforwardly addressing its problems. Ideologues will never get that done.” If Nocera tries to tell us that he's not an ideologue, he fails at it. Pragmatism is an ideology, the ideology of avoiding any decisive choice.
1
I'm certainly not some big Fracking Fan, but the fact of the matter is that it's ridiculous to keep repeating the claim that fracking uses titanic amounts of water and pollutes everything.
Are there problems with it? absolutely. But our water supplies are a prob due to overuse for agriculture and homes, because of insecticide and fertilizer and hog farm runoff, because we're dumping oil and coal tailings into it--and most assuredly because of changing snowfall patterns consequent upon global warming.
Yelling about fracking isn't merely silly. But it is a symptom of the quick-fix, I don't have to give up nothing or conserve, ideology that's half our problem.
Are there problems with it? absolutely. But our water supplies are a prob due to overuse for agriculture and homes, because of insecticide and fertilizer and hog farm runoff, because we're dumping oil and coal tailings into it--and most assuredly because of changing snowfall patterns consequent upon global warming.
Yelling about fracking isn't merely silly. But it is a symptom of the quick-fix, I don't have to give up nothing or conserve, ideology that's half our problem.
Not mentioned by mr. Nocera is the additional benefit of unlocking the political grip the coal industry has had on policy and regulation. This provides new opportunities for innovative technologies and infrastructure solutions to be developed and tested.
More of the same: the best way to address climate change is to double down on on fossil fuels. As for environmentalists, they are guilty of hyperbole. The only responsible policy for using natural gas would include strict measures to quickly end the extraction of fossil fuels. This column, like the ones before it, imagines a world where fossil fuels were, are, and will remain the source of energy. If that is true, Greenland will melt and New York will disappear. So much for realism and pragmatism.
1
"He doesn’t indulge in the hyperbole that you sometimes hear from environmentalists." Joe, you should know well that it isn't just environmentalists who are sounding the alarm on climate change. NASA, the International Energy Agency, the UN, the Pentagon, the World Bank, development agencies, (some) governments, scientific academies. This list goes on (and on).
And I would hardly call the possibility of a 4 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures this century "hyperbole". This is the trajectory we are currently on without significant action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (based on conservative estimates). Take a look for yourself at the literature on what 4 degrees of warming would mean in terms of economic costs, human lives, and extreme suffering (especially amongst poorer nations), not to mention the horrendous accompanying biodiversity loss and impacts on other species. Then do please let us know if you still feel the risks of climate change are all just "hyperbole."
And I would hardly call the possibility of a 4 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures this century "hyperbole". This is the trajectory we are currently on without significant action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (based on conservative estimates). Take a look for yourself at the literature on what 4 degrees of warming would mean in terms of economic costs, human lives, and extreme suffering (especially amongst poorer nations), not to mention the horrendous accompanying biodiversity loss and impacts on other species. Then do please let us know if you still feel the risks of climate change are all just "hyperbole."
3
Until the climate deniers in Congress are replaced the country is badly hampered in its need for clean, renewable energy, and shale is a very small and somewhat flawed step in that direction.
There is one thing that would reduce the amount of worldwide carbon emission . . . that would be if China switched from coal to shale gas for electricity generation. That switch alone would be huge.
What do you do with the fact that there is already 5 times more carbon in inventory to be burnt than we can afford to burn if we want a survivable planet? If we burn what is permitted to burn it will drive the planetary average temperature up to around 10 degrees Fahrenheit and our economy will be a moot point.
1
The best way to maximize the good that shale gas can do is to explore better ways to improve the EXTRACTIVE process so that one does not have to dispose of large quantities of waste water contaminated with toxic chemicals. Surely, better ways could be found to do that. For example, would it be possible to dislodge natural gas from shale by using sonic energy instead of chemically laden water under high pressure? The basic laws of physics tell us that when an adsorbed gas is place under a slight vacuum, it is released in vapor form --a process called pervaporation. The net result would be a much cleaner extractive process. Why not give it a try?
I wish New York State would listen to this. Go upstate and see dead and dying communities everywhere with no economic base and no reason to exist. These blue collar former manufacturing centers need to be allowed to extract natural gas in order to survive. No gambling is not going to do this for them. Wake up New York!
1
Another issue with Mr. Nocera’s piece is his neglect of the extensive political action around the question of fracking. Environmentalists are not the only voice of opposition. Hundreds of cities and towns across country have used council votes and ballot measures to say “no” to fracking. Particularly strong, bipartisan opposition has emerged in places already affected by fracking. In Denton, Texas, voters across party lines soundly approved a fracking ban last year – only to have their decision trounced by the industry-friendly state legislature. Oklahoma State quickly followed suit and banned local fracking bans, preemptively silencing any deliberation or debate around the issue within affected communities. The stakes of fracking and anti-fracking are not limited to energy independence, economic growth, climate change, and public health. Democracy is also on the line. Privileging a crude pragmatism, as Nocera suggests, should not come at the cost of democratic values and practices. Not least when the state of our super-PAC democracy is so feeble.
2
Joe Nocera assumes here that we can just keep right on a-burnin' good ol' fossll fuels all we want.
Our failure to develop mass transit, particularly in our wealthy suburbs, is leading us to extinction, and he is apparently unaware of it.
Our failure to develop mass transit, particularly in our wealthy suburbs, is leading us to extinction, and he is apparently unaware of it.
Land men have being going door to door this summer in the pleasant college town where I live to lease residential lots for fracking. The latest offer was 800 per acre, plus a percentage, which translates into 200 for a quarter acre lot. The land man reassured me that the drilling would be far away from my house, and when I asked him about the source of the water he said they'll just drill a well. I explained to him that North Louisiana gets much of its drinking water from the diminishing Sparta Acquifer. I grew up in the Catskills, but north Louisiana is dotted with gas wells and criss-crossed with pipelines already, and most of my neighbors have already signed.
1
I'm still waiting to hear the N-word. Nuclear power is the elephant in the room. The vastly-funded nuclear laboratories should be commissioned to explore better and safer designs. We have been relying on variations of Rickover's submarine reactors for far too long.
Brookhaven nuclear runs clean and well not because of better design but because those running it and working on it live down wind from it. Nuclear will work well as soon as the builders, owners of the power company, and building inspectors live on site or down wind. Require rich folk to live down wind from them and nukes will be safer.
Predictably, because it never comes up in his incomplete evaluations of fracking, the one word Nocera never mentions is "water." In Levi's extensive article, it doesn't show up until more than halfway through the article, on page 2. And Levi only considers it through the lens of the potential of leaking well seals contaminating water tables. He makes an oblique reference to increased seismic activity associated with the permanent "storage" of wastewater underground. The fracking liquid, which Levi describes as "water, mixed with sand and chemicals," is a shockingly incomplete description. Due to Dick Cheney's White House Energy Policy group, there is no requirement to list those chemicals.
But what Nocera and Levi are blind to, is that fracking requires huge amounts of potable water, a finite resource. This willful allocation toward fracking is, at the least questionable, given the severity of the drought afflicing California and other Western states which produce a huge proportion of our country's food supply.
The energy extraction industry has discovered that recycling fracking liquid leads to the presence of halocarbons in the return liquid, which is not present when "fresh" water is used in the fracking liquid.
Nowhere, in ANY of his fracking articles, does Nocera ever even consider the cost in removing trillions of gallons of potable water from other uses by choosing to use it in fracking.
But what Nocera and Levi are blind to, is that fracking requires huge amounts of potable water, a finite resource. This willful allocation toward fracking is, at the least questionable, given the severity of the drought afflicing California and other Western states which produce a huge proportion of our country's food supply.
The energy extraction industry has discovered that recycling fracking liquid leads to the presence of halocarbons in the return liquid, which is not present when "fresh" water is used in the fracking liquid.
Nowhere, in ANY of his fracking articles, does Nocera ever even consider the cost in removing trillions of gallons of potable water from other uses by choosing to use it in fracking.
4
Mr. Nocera:
Sad to see that you are, once again, stumping for big energy. If pragmatism means supporting the pursuit of profits, no matter the cost you are certainly on the right side of this issue.
However, if long term planning and the health of people and the planet matter, then pragmatism has a far different meaning. Finding ways to limit carbon are basically meaningless unless we also pursue alternatives. Those alternatives are already making inroads on carbon in other countries.
Fracking for gas is not an alternative. I think that using a technology that threatens the water table is as far from sane as it gets. You fail to mention that threat in this column. Not a lot of pragmatism in that omission. Not enough science? Turn on your faucet and wait.
Sad to see that you are, once again, stumping for big energy. If pragmatism means supporting the pursuit of profits, no matter the cost you are certainly on the right side of this issue.
However, if long term planning and the health of people and the planet matter, then pragmatism has a far different meaning. Finding ways to limit carbon are basically meaningless unless we also pursue alternatives. Those alternatives are already making inroads on carbon in other countries.
Fracking for gas is not an alternative. I think that using a technology that threatens the water table is as far from sane as it gets. You fail to mention that threat in this column. Not a lot of pragmatism in that omission. Not enough science? Turn on your faucet and wait.
2
Let's tilt the earth's axis for the sake of argument and project that within perhaps 20 years we shall reach a tipping point after which the harm increasingly done by accumulating GHGs in the atmosphere and the cost of mitigating measures will be huge, unprecedented.
How does that change the argument over fracking and natural gas?
Well, the reality is that the pundits including the UN's prestigious climate change commission have projected just such a scenario. So here's another question: what part of the elephant in the cave do you suppose we're grasping at?
How does that change the argument over fracking and natural gas?
Well, the reality is that the pundits including the UN's prestigious climate change commission have projected just such a scenario. So here's another question: what part of the elephant in the cave do you suppose we're grasping at?
Solving climate change will not involve "either or".
Rather it will involve "and".
More natural gas, less coal, more renewables, etc.
Rather it will involve "and".
More natural gas, less coal, more renewables, etc.
Water is our most precious resource, as any Californian knows. At least in our state, fracking cannot be justified because of its horrific use of water-- not when children have no place to play due to dead parks, songbirds are losing their habitat due, again, to dead parks, there is not enough water to take care of broccoli, lettuce and other healthy food crops, etc.
2
Levi here does not mention the nuisance suits by energy companies, a variety of which complain that increased use of clean energy sources hurt their bottom lines. Surtaxes are sought from customers to make up for lost revenue.
Other comments have noted the importance of an appropriate carbon tax. I concur wholeheartedly. A carbon tax collected at the wellhead, mine entrance, or port of entry is far easier to enforce and calibrate than cap and trade or similar alternatives. The amount of the tax should be at least equal to the cost of permanent scalable sequestration for the amount of CO2 (and methane) emitted by burning the fuel plus a fuel-specific charge to cover the cost of remediating other environmental damages associated with production.
On a more hopeful note, I highly recommend "The Future of Solar Energy", https://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar , from the MIT Energy Initiative for a deep dive into both the bright opportunities and real complexities of supplying a majority of our energy from photovoltaics. My favorite quote:
"Using current PV technology, solar plants covering only about 0.4% of the land area of the continental United States and experiencing average U.S. insolation over the course of a year could produce all the electricity
the nation currently consumes. This is roughly half of the land area currently devoted to producing corn for ethanol, ..." (Chapter 1, page 4)
Note the word "current". The authors are referring to real-world off-the-shelf commercial technology. About 40GW of PV systems were installed world-wide in 2014, with 55GW more expected in 2015.
On a more hopeful note, I highly recommend "The Future of Solar Energy", https://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar , from the MIT Energy Initiative for a deep dive into both the bright opportunities and real complexities of supplying a majority of our energy from photovoltaics. My favorite quote:
"Using current PV technology, solar plants covering only about 0.4% of the land area of the continental United States and experiencing average U.S. insolation over the course of a year could produce all the electricity
the nation currently consumes. This is roughly half of the land area currently devoted to producing corn for ethanol, ..." (Chapter 1, page 4)
Note the word "current". The authors are referring to real-world off-the-shelf commercial technology. About 40GW of PV systems were installed world-wide in 2014, with 55GW more expected in 2015.
1
Natural gas is not a "bridge to renewables', because there is no technology infrastructure component of natural gas that can lead, by more research and experience, to a missing required component of any renewable fuel industry. The only arguably still-limiting technology for a complete renewable fuel takeover is the need for an improved power grid - to design better ways to store power to overcome intermittency of the source. Natural gas will not help that.
And intermittency is a problem much more with solar, not wind, because the wind blows during day or night. The grid even as it is now can sustain a much higher fraction of renewables-generated power. In Germany the renewables contribution to electrical power is probably 10 times ours and that is a country that is nearly a third the size of ours. Their power grid still seems to work, doesn't it?? Why not write about that? Be part of the solution, Sir.
Promoting natural gas will lock in its capital investment architecture and create an economy dependent on it for many decades. That is unacceptable, because it compromises the future habitability of Earth for the population size that we are growing to. Does that sound radical, Mr Nocera? It is not. You might want to pay more attention to the climate science.
And intermittency is a problem much more with solar, not wind, because the wind blows during day or night. The grid even as it is now can sustain a much higher fraction of renewables-generated power. In Germany the renewables contribution to electrical power is probably 10 times ours and that is a country that is nearly a third the size of ours. Their power grid still seems to work, doesn't it?? Why not write about that? Be part of the solution, Sir.
Promoting natural gas will lock in its capital investment architecture and create an economy dependent on it for many decades. That is unacceptable, because it compromises the future habitability of Earth for the population size that we are growing to. Does that sound radical, Mr Nocera? It is not. You might want to pay more attention to the climate science.
2
Thoughts--The problems with planners is they see the world and its problems as pieces on a chessboard. Statistics and numbers, predictions, none of these address the human cost, the visual blight, or the expensive marginal lifestyles that arrive with boom towns like those of North Dakota. The dust from trucks carrying sand for fracking, or with windfarms, again the visual blight, the slashes of a wind generator breaking up the light. The noise of its blades as they cross the air, the dead birds, the falling ice, events that may ruin a nearby nieghbors lifestyle and don't show up in the numbers. Big Planners tend to toss away these smaller, different costs, with big goals for humanity.
1
Here's the inconvenient truth that carbon-deniers and "clean-energy" have to face.:
The only nation-states that have ever substantially reduced carbon emissions to levels, are those countries who have had famine, life expectancy of under 50 years, destabilizing civil war, and totalitarian government (ie Sudan, Zimbabwe and North Korea). Meanwhile, the carbon's increased use is in fact a direct measure of third world economies maturing and providing their citizens the opportunity to acquire provisions that might match what the first world had in the middle of the last century.
Will the environmental extremists please come clean themselves and face reality. Or, do the environmental movement wants us to revert back to a pre-1900s age of industry and longevity?
The only nation-states that have ever substantially reduced carbon emissions to levels, are those countries who have had famine, life expectancy of under 50 years, destabilizing civil war, and totalitarian government (ie Sudan, Zimbabwe and North Korea). Meanwhile, the carbon's increased use is in fact a direct measure of third world economies maturing and providing their citizens the opportunity to acquire provisions that might match what the first world had in the middle of the last century.
Will the environmental extremists please come clean themselves and face reality. Or, do the environmental movement wants us to revert back to a pre-1900s age of industry and longevity?
2
Since this very country's been lowering its emissions for a while now, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say nope, that ain't true.
This column sounds like a reiteration of the Obama administration's policy on climate change. As a "conservationist" (don't call me "environmentalist") I like that. The reality is that coal isn't going away any time soon either, it just won't grow in proportion to meet the future total energy needs for our country. Hopefully natural gas won't either. Some responsible fracking is acceptable, but the toxic brew and huge ground water demands that go with fracking are the real problem. The reality is that we never produce, but rather we always conserve our way out of energy problems. That will be true with implementation of smart grids, microproduction and other means to more efficiently produce and transmit power. The greatest immediate (climate change) challenge we have is the global oil glut. Transportation is a major CO2 producer and that problemm is only going to get worse.
11
I'm all for moving from coal to natural gas if it's coupled with a huge infrastructure spend to dramatically increase solar and wind power.
I wonder how good an investment natural gas fracking is if it's merely a bridge fuel? I suspect not very good and that's why it's only a good idea if we abdicate our renewable energy future to big private energy companies.
I wonder how good an investment natural gas fracking is if it's merely a bridge fuel? I suspect not very good and that's why it's only a good idea if we abdicate our renewable energy future to big private energy companies.
Joe Nocera, your endless repetition - allowed by your status as a New York Times columnist, requires me to engage in the same, something more than one reviewer perhaps does not approve of.
Just once, Joe, name these two in addition to solar and wind. Each of them makes it possible for Sweden to live very nicely without natural gas from fracking.
Ground-source heat-pump geothermal: The only emissions, if any, are the result of the production of the electricity used to run the heat pump. The systems are invisible since the bore holes are invisible. The heat pumps run 24/7 functioning as what I see as the best of all heating-cooling systems. If you run into Bernie Sanders, ask him. His home-town, Burlington, has some impressive systems.
High techonology incineration of municipal solid waste: This system heats every Swedish city, 24/7. A resource that does not have to mined or fracked; it is "just there". An extra benefit, no landfills those methane producing monsters loved by my fellow Americans. And this to supporters of American environmental organizations, in your replies telling me "Never In America" also tell me when you last visited Sweden to learn the facts, not your fictions. You too, Joe.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Just once, Joe, name these two in addition to solar and wind. Each of them makes it possible for Sweden to live very nicely without natural gas from fracking.
Ground-source heat-pump geothermal: The only emissions, if any, are the result of the production of the electricity used to run the heat pump. The systems are invisible since the bore holes are invisible. The heat pumps run 24/7 functioning as what I see as the best of all heating-cooling systems. If you run into Bernie Sanders, ask him. His home-town, Burlington, has some impressive systems.
High techonology incineration of municipal solid waste: This system heats every Swedish city, 24/7. A resource that does not have to mined or fracked; it is "just there". An extra benefit, no landfills those methane producing monsters loved by my fellow Americans. And this to supporters of American environmental organizations, in your replies telling me "Never In America" also tell me when you last visited Sweden to learn the facts, not your fictions. You too, Joe.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
5
Seventy-eight percent of electricity in Sweden comes from nuclear power and hydroelectric power. Sweden, which has a population of about 10 million, about the same as North Carolina but less than New York City. It has three plants with a total of ten nuclear reactors, which works out to one nuclear reactor for every 2.3 million people. Only 30 U.S. states have nuclear reactors.
The entire population of Sweden is only slightly more than that of New York City alone and less than half the population of New York State; the US is the third largest country in the world by population--more than 33 times that of Sweden; the US is the fourth largest country by land area; Sweden is 55th.
Yet, you think it makes sense to compare such vastly different countries?
Yet, you think it makes sense to compare such vastly different countries?
Where's this realism in these arguments:
Enforcement of current regulations is sorely lacking. What we've got are a bunch of laws that are feckless without the power to enforce them. I see case after case where government agencies don't follow through, either because they lack the means or because corporate power at several levels manages to blunt that enforcement. So talking about regulated "free enterprise" is an oxymoron, these days. Frack away --- no one's going to stop you.
Enforcement of current regulations is sorely lacking. What we've got are a bunch of laws that are feckless without the power to enforce them. I see case after case where government agencies don't follow through, either because they lack the means or because corporate power at several levels manages to blunt that enforcement. So talking about regulated "free enterprise" is an oxymoron, these days. Frack away --- no one's going to stop you.
3
One of the reasons that natural gas is seen by some as a "bridge fuel" other than that it has lower carbon emissions, is that it can be used on short notice to generate electricity using what are essentially jet airplane turbines. Such "peaker" plants can firm up the needed supply electricity when there is not enough wind and solar to satisfy electricity demand.
The other alternative is electricity storage, which remains quite expensive except where conventional or pumped hydro is available.
The other alternative is electricity storage, which remains quite expensive except where conventional or pumped hydro is available.
3
Perhaps people who like glaciers and low sea levels should have been born during one of the several ice ages. Global warming has been a fact of earth history for about the past 20,000 years, and probably several times between ice ages. One sees no concept, either in the Nocera-Levi piece, or in the comments it has generated, of whether the object of remedial action is to freeze global temperatures or atmospheric carbon content at current levels, or to allow for some increase in them over a specific time period. Moreover, there is no idea offered as to the acceptable polices and economic costs associated with imposing immediate, strict limits or in allowing for some increases over the next century.
If a Carbon Tax of $50/metric ton was needed to freeze carbon use at current levels, a substitution of natural gas, which has one-half the carbon footprint of coal, would reduce the tax by one-half. This is not insignificant. If economic growth, hence, more employment and higher incomes for workers were by-products of energy source substitution this is not a trivial result.
To the extent that moralizing and fear-mongering are the environmentalists' approach to global warming, and serious economic policy issues are ignored, the result is the unfortunate current policy mix - or mix-up. In this context, taxpayer subsidies for "green technologies" are for the benefit of a constituency group; they give the appearance of government action. They are neither effective, nor efficient.
If a Carbon Tax of $50/metric ton was needed to freeze carbon use at current levels, a substitution of natural gas, which has one-half the carbon footprint of coal, would reduce the tax by one-half. This is not insignificant. If economic growth, hence, more employment and higher incomes for workers were by-products of energy source substitution this is not a trivial result.
To the extent that moralizing and fear-mongering are the environmentalists' approach to global warming, and serious economic policy issues are ignored, the result is the unfortunate current policy mix - or mix-up. In this context, taxpayer subsidies for "green technologies" are for the benefit of a constituency group; they give the appearance of government action. They are neither effective, nor efficient.
1
BDR, you're missing several points. First, nobody is suggesting that we can freeze global temperatures where they are now. The amount of carbon already in the atmosphere and the economic momentum the world economy is assured to keep global rising for decades to come. The only question how high. Second, while there has always been fluctuation in the climate, with periods of warming and cooling, human-caused global warming is happening much faster than natural cycles and the ability of the life on our small planet (including human life) to respond is already being severely challenged. Third, I don't think anybody wants to see mile-deep ice on Ottawa or another Bering land bridge, but nor does anybody want to see higher and higher continental temperatures or sea level rises that threaten hundreds of millions of people. Fourth, it is pretty lame to fear damage to the world economy due to efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and ignore damage to the world economy caused by global temperature increases. And last, it's disingenuous at best to question the economic justification for policies that encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (through conservation and use of cleaner energy sources) while ignoring the economic incentives in our current policies favoring the fossil fuels industry. Few policy issues have been better studied than the economics of energy production and consumption. It's pretty silly to claim that these economic issues are being ignored or are fear-mongering.
The auto industry's experience with safety, emissions and MPG seems like a pretty good example of how government and business can work together, if uneasily, for public good.
Auto companies have always cried doom whenever asked to address the shortcomings of their products: "Can't be done at acceptable cost!"
But once the government set standards for safety, pollution and mileage -- and left it up to the auto makers to figure out how to reach those goals -- the manufacturers have largely met government standards. Cars are better, more economical and safer than ever.
This model can apply to any business or industry. It sidesteps accusations of government micromanagement -- and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of business. If they shirk that responsibility, they damage their reputations and lose out to competitors. If they meet them, they can bask in their own success. It's their choice.
Companies that want to stay in business then have an incentive to do the right thing.
Auto companies have always cried doom whenever asked to address the shortcomings of their products: "Can't be done at acceptable cost!"
But once the government set standards for safety, pollution and mileage -- and left it up to the auto makers to figure out how to reach those goals -- the manufacturers have largely met government standards. Cars are better, more economical and safer than ever.
This model can apply to any business or industry. It sidesteps accusations of government micromanagement -- and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of business. If they shirk that responsibility, they damage their reputations and lose out to competitors. If they meet them, they can bask in their own success. It's their choice.
Companies that want to stay in business then have an incentive to do the right thing.
6
The bottom line is still that we must limit the total number of tons of carbon added to the atmosphere by human activity. So we have to shift to renewable sources and we have to do so in time or else we will (well my children and grandchildren will) endure the consequences.
Since energy consumption is required for people to have necessities of life as well as the comforts and conveniences of good living, there is zero chance carbon fuel burning will end, except when and as replacements are available.
Accordingly the only way to avoid dangerous climate change and sea level rise is to invent better ways to provide carbon neutral energy supply. Fortunately we are quite close to the point were solar energy and battery storage works well enough, and costs become low enough, that coal, oil and natural gas will soon become uncompetitive. Then the switch to renewable energy will happen rapidly due to market forces and competition.
Current dominant carbon based fuel corporations, both national corporations (Russia and Saudi Arabia) and private ones (Koch Industries) as one would expect are doing everything in their power to slow and frustrate progress to prevent losing trillions of dollars in wealth and their power. They do not want to leave their coal oil and gas reserves buried underground losing their value, and have their wealth dwindle. . Eventually though they cannot win against progress.
Since energy consumption is required for people to have necessities of life as well as the comforts and conveniences of good living, there is zero chance carbon fuel burning will end, except when and as replacements are available.
Accordingly the only way to avoid dangerous climate change and sea level rise is to invent better ways to provide carbon neutral energy supply. Fortunately we are quite close to the point were solar energy and battery storage works well enough, and costs become low enough, that coal, oil and natural gas will soon become uncompetitive. Then the switch to renewable energy will happen rapidly due to market forces and competition.
Current dominant carbon based fuel corporations, both national corporations (Russia and Saudi Arabia) and private ones (Koch Industries) as one would expect are doing everything in their power to slow and frustrate progress to prevent losing trillions of dollars in wealth and their power. They do not want to leave their coal oil and gas reserves buried underground losing their value, and have their wealth dwindle. . Eventually though they cannot win against progress.
9
I hope and pray you are right. Currently, I wonder if increased production of Middle East oil, including Iran, will drive the prices so low that they will help to drive the others out of the industry. Frankly, I don't see a lot of cooperation between industry and government (which should be the people.) Industry breaks the rules whenever possible, and "elected" government takes their cut and lets them get away with it. ***
Currently, a neighboring county (the state's poorest) is proposing to install a lot of wind turbines throughout its majority of farmland. In opposition, we see signs all over the place that say "Save our Homes!" and "Save our Farms!" "Keep the County Scenic!" What? Just another example of the of reality, and clean progress, that conservatives refuse to see, even if they can make some money from it. ***
Really discouraging.
Currently, a neighboring county (the state's poorest) is proposing to install a lot of wind turbines throughout its majority of farmland. In opposition, we see signs all over the place that say "Save our Homes!" and "Save our Farms!" "Keep the County Scenic!" What? Just another example of the of reality, and clean progress, that conservatives refuse to see, even if they can make some money from it. ***
Really discouraging.
1
"My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons: It has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth."
I think that you are very shortsighted. We need to stop polluting our planet for short term gains at the expense of long term problems, climate change and ground water pollution. Instead of fracking our way to energy independence we could invest in a big push to advance renewables. It is long past time for some bold solutions rather than the continued mining of yet more fossil fuels. We need not only to curb our emissions but to curb our energy appetites. Fracking may just be the next Love Canal story.
I think that you are very shortsighted. We need to stop polluting our planet for short term gains at the expense of long term problems, climate change and ground water pollution. Instead of fracking our way to energy independence we could invest in a big push to advance renewables. It is long past time for some bold solutions rather than the continued mining of yet more fossil fuels. We need not only to curb our emissions but to curb our energy appetites. Fracking may just be the next Love Canal story.
13
"My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons: It has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth."
Another way of saying that is that it has turned us into an "oil economy" which is subject to a market that can be controlled by our current friends, the Saudis. We prosper at their pleasure.
Another way of saying that is that it has turned us into an "oil economy" which is subject to a market that can be controlled by our current friends, the Saudis. We prosper at their pleasure.
4
Uh, no. Shale gas and oil is precisely what is now freeing us from dependence on Saudi oil.
5
Actually, we the people and the US government do not control the shale gas. The big oil companies control it, and the price will fluctuate with the world oil price. We may be (somewhat) protected from supply disruptions, but the price we pay is always dependent on the market.
2
If the Saudis allowed the price of oil to drop, as OPEC wants, we would sink into a recession at least as severe as 2008. This is because the oil we are pumping is difficult and expensive to get to. So we have to be very nice to the Saudis. Remember when Obama bowed to the Saudi king?
2
Tax carbon emissions.
8
Atmospheric CO2 levels, at 400 ppm and rising at 3ppm / year, were last seen 3 million years ago. 120 ppm were added in the last 200 years. These are facts, and if you are not alarmed by them, you should be. Fracking does nothing to change this trajectory.
5
Everyone has their go to person for sources. That is the problem. Instead of listening to many different opinions we tend to chose those we feel are giving the best information, usually the information we want to hear. When doing research you must go to all sorts of sources, take the information you are given, run it against all of those sources and then make an analysis including all sources and opinions and drawing your own conclusion. This is good analytic procedure. If you always go to the same sources you will always get the same answers. Michael Levi may be right or close or wrong but by this article we will not know and will not be able to make a good decision.
4
Agreed .. Would be interested in learning Mr. Levi's opinion on the targeted emission regulations (methane and other high GHG components) .. Which given their 'multiplier' effect .. Stand to provide a greater reduction in GHG impact per unit of decrease in emission .. Including mammalian waste in the equation would be of interest as well .. Thereby providing an integrated, GHG impact weighted strategy that would provide for an overall reduction in climate change..
Don't any of you liberals care about poor people and the price they pay for electricity and every other good in the world? And spending all this money on green initiatives that have overwhelmingly underperformed? Do practical incentives or any sort of economic analysis ever enter into your dogma? Is it some sort of conspiracy to bring more people into poverty to bolster your voting ranks?
JWW: Don't you care about people in general? If the world continues down a carbon-based energy path, even the lives of the non-poor will suffer greatly, if not get snuffed out.
Wow! A bleeding heart conservative!
Mr. Nocera, nothing is here to stay. Change is inevitable. Wouldn't it be smart to understand that and have some larger, more rational policy for the transitions coming? There's nothing wrong with your suggestion to move coal to natural gas and natural gas to renewables; it's already happening on a cost basis. We just need to stop aiding those fighting it.
2
Murphy was an Irishman, and therefore, an optimist. He said "if it can go wrong, it will go wrong." He should have said "If it can't go wrong, it will go wrong."
The idea that the "free market" is some kind of cosmic, incorporeal being guiding business is rubbish at the same level of the "unseen hand." Clearly, those who command the heights of the American economy are playing with our destinies, with nothing to guide them other than their bottom lines. They probably pray to Maggie Thatcher, muttering her mantra: "there's no such thing as society."
Government can do it better, but only when motivated. (Boehner motivated? McConnell motivated?) America has now reached such a state of fragmentation that many can respond to nothing above the level of Trump-nonsense. Everything else is slimed: ivory tower, elitist... The history of empires tells us that when one is on top for long, there's only one way left--down. By whichever myth we live, we need to prepare for the worst as we slide down.
The idea that the "free market" is some kind of cosmic, incorporeal being guiding business is rubbish at the same level of the "unseen hand." Clearly, those who command the heights of the American economy are playing with our destinies, with nothing to guide them other than their bottom lines. They probably pray to Maggie Thatcher, muttering her mantra: "there's no such thing as society."
Government can do it better, but only when motivated. (Boehner motivated? McConnell motivated?) America has now reached such a state of fragmentation that many can respond to nothing above the level of Trump-nonsense. Everything else is slimed: ivory tower, elitist... The history of empires tells us that when one is on top for long, there's only one way left--down. By whichever myth we live, we need to prepare for the worst as we slide down.
3
On a recent drive to Burlington, VT from Philadelphia, I was stunned by the number of solar fields that seemed to have sprung up overnight on what was once beautiful VT hillsides and grassy knolls. I wonder how long it will be before the crunchies of VT realize they replaced their Green Mountains with solar fields? Further, VT isn't exactly the sunshine state, so those fields will only go so far in getting people off the grid; especially during their long, dark & cold winters.
So, you are anti-solar. I guess that means you are pro carbon-based fuels? Or is your favorite nuclear? Your essay does not contribute to helping solve a real problem for Homo sapiens sapiens.
Germany is s cloudy as vermont and they have a very high ratio of solar.
I am shocked that you dismiss the warnings from environmentalist as "hyperbole." We are almost locked into 4 degrees fahrenheit of warming. It will be catastrophic for humanity. The U.S. should be spending all it can to move this country -- and the globe -- to renewables. Our spending on science and basic research ought to be four times as much. We should be making massive investments in mass transit, and creating things that like real bike lanes so people can commute safely. Instead it's cut, cut cut. The political game here is shrink government, reduced spending, lift regulation and allow the corporate power to cash out before the climate collapses.
The argument that natural gas is a bridge is just denial. And I'm shocked that you wrote a column around the views of one source on this. Why not pick up the phone and ask Naomi Klein, of James Hansen or Michael Mann about this as well? Or why not the Pope for that matter?
What will it take for people to realize that gravity of this problem? Not from your column.
The argument that natural gas is a bridge is just denial. And I'm shocked that you wrote a column around the views of one source on this. Why not pick up the phone and ask Naomi Klein, of James Hansen or Michael Mann about this as well? Or why not the Pope for that matter?
What will it take for people to realize that gravity of this problem? Not from your column.
12
Mr. Nocera-- where do you the best places to frack are? How about in the Catskills in the New York City water shed or next to your summer home. Oops I forgot. There's no shale gas under the Hamptons.
9
Michael Levi has also recently published an article in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. This article takes a more global view of the climate problem than is discussed in the Times op-ed piece, and indicates that what the US is developing here with the shale gas is not broadly applicable for reasons of geology, particularly in Asia, where coal is the principal asset.
2
And just what is the hyperbole of the environmentalists? I guess when you pretend to be neutral, any fact that you disagree with is hyperbole even though base on scientific facts.
4
One other set of problems not mentioned by Mr. Nocera is that pipelines need to be built across many states to transport the fracked gas. I now live where a major pipeline is planned through my town, with all of the usual anti-democratic procedures involved, such as "influencing" federal, state and local politicians to make laws to expedite the routing, such as taking local residents' land by eminent domain, as well as causing environmental destruction with the building of the pipelines and pumping stations, and all of what is involved with years of construction.
And though the pipeline companies try to assure us that the pipelines are not being routed to export fracked gas, the route to the eastern coast, and the ginning up of tensions with Russia so that they cut back gas exports to the EU, lead me to suspect that those assurances are lies. Cold War I was so good to us in leaving nuclear waste from bomb production that will take centuries to clean up, and Cold War II will leave us with polluted aquifer water that may never be recovered, or replaced. Nocera demonstrates the short term, limited thinking of too many of the cheerleaders in the media who don't consider the full spectrum of damage that fracking for gas produces.
And though the pipeline companies try to assure us that the pipelines are not being routed to export fracked gas, the route to the eastern coast, and the ginning up of tensions with Russia so that they cut back gas exports to the EU, lead me to suspect that those assurances are lies. Cold War I was so good to us in leaving nuclear waste from bomb production that will take centuries to clean up, and Cold War II will leave us with polluted aquifer water that may never be recovered, or replaced. Nocera demonstrates the short term, limited thinking of too many of the cheerleaders in the media who don't consider the full spectrum of damage that fracking for gas produces.
4
The problem with the article is that it does not draw a distinction between using natural gas sparingly to support renewables as a backup sourceuntil storage decreases the need for this to virtually no use of gas versus simply shifting from coal based power to gas based power. The former is a path to sustainable energy use and the latter is the madness many utilities think is an adequate response to climate change. It isn't, not even close. My local utility is following the 2nd path to stay at about the same level of total fossil fuel use into the distant future. Over 20 years, calculations show that it will produce 50% more GHG emissions just for electricity than my community's carbon budget for ALL emissions.
3
What Mr. Nocera discusses is the incremental change in direction of a fragile ship heading for a disastrous collision. The effects of Climate Change are being seen now, a well predicted but will only be felt in a significant way in 10-20 years.
By 2035 the discuss will be 'WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING". The solution to avoid this disaster is use less electricity, use less motorized transportation and use less industrially produced stuff.
This is easier to predict that the Great Recession' ( which was well predicted and very profitable for those that looked).
They will be 'next to no ice' in the Arctic by 2035; Greenland glaciers will flow like crazy and fish populations reduced and on the move. Human populations will be on the move to from drought, forest fires and crop failures. There will be multiple 'Sandy-sized' storms and more than a few unanticipated disasters.
Natural gas to reduce coal use. A no-brainer. But only if there is a HUGE decrease in CO2 and methane emissions.
By 2035 the discuss will be 'WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING". The solution to avoid this disaster is use less electricity, use less motorized transportation and use less industrially produced stuff.
This is easier to predict that the Great Recession' ( which was well predicted and very profitable for those that looked).
They will be 'next to no ice' in the Arctic by 2035; Greenland glaciers will flow like crazy and fish populations reduced and on the move. Human populations will be on the move to from drought, forest fires and crop failures. There will be multiple 'Sandy-sized' storms and more than a few unanticipated disasters.
Natural gas to reduce coal use. A no-brainer. But only if there is a HUGE decrease in CO2 and methane emissions.
45
It is naive to think that America is capable of addressing the problems related to fracking and implementing policies to reduce carbon emissions when Congress is controlled by the corporations that profit from maintaining the status quo.
12
I agree and Mr. Nocero has no answer.
According to Mr. Nocera, shale gas ". . .has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth." And that's just the problem. The false sense of energy security provided by shale gas permits advanced technological societies to go about their toss-away consuming ways, continuing the decimation that such lifestyles inflict on the environment. And economic growth is the root of the problem.
What he and others looking for a way to "transition to renewables" without any economic pain or disruption fail to acknowledge is this: Even were we able to stop all fossil fuel emissions completely today, we'd still be facing a host of critical environmental crises that won't abate until the spread of consumer corporate capitalism is brought under control. The sixth great extinction event is upon us, sparked by one species, us. Ocean life is endangered due not only to warming but to over fishing and pollution, and the entire ocean food chain is endangered. Arable land is washing and blowing away from drought and from the destructive impact of industrial agriculture dependent on herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizers. Fresh water supplies are vanishing from run-off from agribusiness and industrial pollution. In short, we're living in the Anthropocene, the only geologic age caused by a single species, and it has us on the road to ecocide. Peace.
What he and others looking for a way to "transition to renewables" without any economic pain or disruption fail to acknowledge is this: Even were we able to stop all fossil fuel emissions completely today, we'd still be facing a host of critical environmental crises that won't abate until the spread of consumer corporate capitalism is brought under control. The sixth great extinction event is upon us, sparked by one species, us. Ocean life is endangered due not only to warming but to over fishing and pollution, and the entire ocean food chain is endangered. Arable land is washing and blowing away from drought and from the destructive impact of industrial agriculture dependent on herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizers. Fresh water supplies are vanishing from run-off from agribusiness and industrial pollution. In short, we're living in the Anthropocene, the only geologic age caused by a single species, and it has us on the road to ecocide. Peace.
9
Here's the thing, Joe: Yes, natural gas cuts carbon dioxide emissions in half (excluding methane). That's great. But the scientific consensus is that we need to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. So even if the methane problem could be completely solved through regulation, natural gas is still not our answer to climate change.
But I'm not opposed to having a few natural gas plants as baseline power for renewables.
But I'm not opposed to having a few natural gas plants as baseline power for renewables.
1
As usual Mr. Nocera finds a way to argue that oil and gas companies should do what they want. All natural gas isn't shale gas that results from Fracking. The greed of the energy companies the leads them to destroy the environment so that they can export this "cheap" gas to China must be controlled and Fracking stopped. Even the head of EXXON didn't want Fracking in his own back yard. He actually sued himself!
Conflating the use of natural gas collected without Fracking is disingenuous but expected. Alternative methods of creating the energy are crucial to protecting the humans.
Conflating the use of natural gas collected without Fracking is disingenuous but expected. Alternative methods of creating the energy are crucial to protecting the humans.
3
"the methane that can leak from fracked wells "
Actually, "does leak". And where are the "appropriate rules" Mr. Nocera mentions? Those putative rules will cost Big Gas money, so will be resisted every step. Unless leaked methane is stopped, shale gas is just another fossil fuel cooking our planet so a handful of shareholders can have more cash to play with.
Actually, "does leak". And where are the "appropriate rules" Mr. Nocera mentions? Those putative rules will cost Big Gas money, so will be resisted every step. Unless leaked methane is stopped, shale gas is just another fossil fuel cooking our planet so a handful of shareholders can have more cash to play with.
4
"Doing to communities"? It's called poisoning ground water. Just because you don't name it doesn't make it go away.
10
Natural gas isn't a bridge. It's a gangplank.
10
Fracking for oil and gas and Shale oil extraction and climate change are related for a disaster for more then one. But the biggest problem is the whole sale destruction of underground infrastructure that has millions of year to stabilize the planet earth. That in itself will be a disaster of the first order that nothing can fix. The other most recent discovery is that even Antarctica is heating up from below ( geothermal heat from the core of the earth). That factor is far more dangerous in vast glaciers ice melting from below, then so called global warming that is recorded in average temperature increase. What really matters is extreme temperature that take the real toll notwithstanding droughts like those taking place in the western US plus depletion of water in the aquifers that will collapse and further create hell with the infrastructure below ground.
4
"The power of facts"? Be prepared for a barrage of negative comments. You can't use facts when discussing 'climate change'. You have to use emotion and fear. You have to use models that 'massage the decline'. In short you have be like RFK Jr., advocating for natural gas when it was an expensive alternative to coal but changing your mind when it became a cheap and abundant alternative.
Facts? Facts? We don't need no stinking facts. We have models. We have models that show economic growth is bad.
It would be funny if so many people didn't actually think that way.
Facts? Facts? We don't need no stinking facts. We have models. We have models that show economic growth is bad.
It would be funny if so many people didn't actually think that way.
1
JB: We have the fact that economic so-called growth, driven by corporate capitalism, is laying waste to forests around the globe. We have the fact that the same wanton practices have over-fished and polluted the oceans sparking a threat to entire ocean food chain starting with the phytoplankton. We have the fact that the sixth great extinction even has begun, driven by a single species, us. We have the fact that fresh water supplies and arable land is disappearing around the globe from the toxic practices of industrial agriculture. I could go on. How many facts does it take to open your eyes? Peace.
1
Economic growth is bad because it perpetuates the absurd notion that having more things will make you happy. It won't and it hasn't. Oh yes, it also is destroying the planet.
1
The end game is still the same: carbon dioxide leads to a hotter planet. Fracking may seem great at the moment, but the seeds of our destruction continue to be produced. The economy benefits from fracking, but the earth's atmospheric blanket does not. It would be much better to "drill" the sun and its fellow non-carbon energy fields than to continue on the present course. But will we evolve quickly enough to save ourselves? At the moment, doubtful.
2
Everybody has their "facts" Joe. There is no need for gas. Look at Scotland and even Germany. Scotland has 50% renewable energy and is on track to have 100% by 2020. They even own oil fields! So there is really no excuse. Fracking for natural gas is an enviromental disaster, especially for clean water and now, proven to cause earthquakes, for goodness sakes. Gas is simply a way for the fossil fuel industries to make hay out of the last gasp of oil. It hasn't benefited average Americans as much as industry and banks ( alot of their value it seems is tied up in what's still in the ground). It might look good on paper, but it simply doesn't have the same impact as a build out of green renewable energy for benifitting the average Joe.
122
Scotland has a small population & a legacy hydro-electric system due to the mountains. It is not on track to increase either hydro or non-hydro renewables by anything like what would be needed to have 100%, never mind in five years. It also has the ability to bring in English electricity over existing lines.
Furthermore - electricity is just a part of the whole - cooking & heating require gas. By 2020 Scotland will be importing gas from Louisiana.
Furthermore - electricity is just a part of the whole - cooking & heating require gas. By 2020 Scotland will be importing gas from Louisiana.
Nocera and Levi have gotten one thing wrong; renewable are already winning on price in many places. Despite opposition from utilities and millions of dollars in lobbying efforts by the natural gas industry, renewables are gaining market share in many places around the country. The reason: price. We do not need a bridge to renewables, we simply need to unshackle the free market. Stop subsidizing oil and gas. Stop paying for pipeline security and push that back on the oil and gas companies. Renewables are our future and our future is today. I'm as sure of it as I am that there will be an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 8. It's time to stop burning stuff.
18
Renewables are heavily subsidized in various ways, but so are fossil fuels through such things as depletion allowances. And for everything it is difficult to count up all the environmental costs, nor is this done as a matter of course in markets. The price of fossil fuels has obviously not included the long-term environmental costs, but the cost of CO2 emission was unknown before the last 20-30 years. Free markets just don't take account of environmental costs - this has to be done by government. Free enterprise is especially bad at fundamental research in energy - it doesn't pay off in the short term. Nuclear power was developed by massive government investment, and the basis of photovoltaics came largely from Bell Labs, which was basically forced on AT&T as a price for their telephone monopoly.
There is no reason to think that free markets can solve the problems of energy production.
There is no reason to think that free markets can solve the problems of energy production.
1
Please explain how the government is paying for pipeline security? Are they hiring security guards and posting them by pipelines? Are they writing a check to the oil and gas companies to hire guards?
Mr. Nocera throws in the specious, Levi, "doesn’t indulge in the hyperbole that you sometimes hear from environmentalists." What hyperbole? Environmentalists have been right about Climate Change since the 80's. They said the arctic would melt, were ridiculed, and now it has melted, faster than the models predicted, by the way. There was no hyperbole. They said the oceans were rising and temperatures were rising, and they have, faster than predicted. Environmentalists said that CO2 was turning the ocean acidic and it would kill the marine food chain, the source of 20% of the world's protein, and that process continues. If you are prone to discount the word of environmentalists, read Robert Rubin in Washington Post, saying, "The buildup of greenhouse gases is cumulative and irreversible; the pollutants we are now emitting will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. So what we do each day will affect us and the planet for centuries. Damage resulting from climate change cuts across almost every aspect of life: public health, extreme weather, the economy and so much else." The only questions are, how bad will it be, and how fast will it get that bad? The answers to those two questions hinge on how fast we eliminate fossil fuels. Mr. Nocera seems content to go slowly. But then, he is in his sixties, and will not face the worst of it, so why not keep using enough to avoid inconvenience in his lifetime, and loss of profits for sellers of fossil fuels?
41
Yes, we know. Here in Texas we produce both more wind energy and more natural gas than any other state. Texas also has its own electric grid, ERCOT. It has seceded from the Union of electricity.
The author misunderstands the oil business in an important way. Oil & gas production disrupts communities regardless of the technology. Oil & gas fields are chemical industrial zones in rural, wilderness, and exurban settings.
This is nothing new in Texas. Ever since Spindletop (1901) there has been the friction between landowners and oil companies who get rich off oil and the much larger area population that suffers all the hassle of production activities but is not getting rich.
The author misunderstands the oil business in an important way. Oil & gas production disrupts communities regardless of the technology. Oil & gas fields are chemical industrial zones in rural, wilderness, and exurban settings.
This is nothing new in Texas. Ever since Spindletop (1901) there has been the friction between landowners and oil companies who get rich off oil and the much larger area population that suffers all the hassle of production activities but is not getting rich.
8
Exactly right, Joe. Peter Drucker once said that good managers manage for both today and tomorrow. Shale, with all of its problems, provides the abilty to manage our energy security for today, while providing a pathway to renewables for tomorrow.
1
This is pure Kool-Aid.
Without being able to identify the unknown ingredients in fracking fluid - information the government itself is not privy to (not a good sign), and setting aside the highly carcinogenic compounds we are aware of (benzene, formaldehyde, etc.) - how can either Mr. Levi or Mr. Nocera construct a coherent assessment of its effects?
Mr. Nocera's tough guy stance that like it or not, fracking is here to stay, together with his easy dismissal of environmentalists (and by extension, the environmental movement, even the urgency of the crisis itself) as teeth-gnashing screaming Mimis jousting at windmills, perfectly define him as a shill for the fossil fuel industry and the status quo. He even trots out the figure of Michael Levi to give his piece the impression of consensus, though Mr. Levi's reverence for "the power of facts" seems to ignore a good many, particularly those of the well-established sort hostile to his thesis.
To avoid catastrophic global warming, the vast majority of untapped fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground. Fracking poses serious health risks with deadly and expensive outcomes, contributes to carbon emissions we can't afford, destabilizes ground structure and poisons our water supply. Wind and solar power are capable of powering America now, but under constant attack from the cash-bloated, zombie-like fossil fuel industry. These are just some of the powerful facts Mr. Levi and Mr. Nocera are neglecting to believe in.
Without being able to identify the unknown ingredients in fracking fluid - information the government itself is not privy to (not a good sign), and setting aside the highly carcinogenic compounds we are aware of (benzene, formaldehyde, etc.) - how can either Mr. Levi or Mr. Nocera construct a coherent assessment of its effects?
Mr. Nocera's tough guy stance that like it or not, fracking is here to stay, together with his easy dismissal of environmentalists (and by extension, the environmental movement, even the urgency of the crisis itself) as teeth-gnashing screaming Mimis jousting at windmills, perfectly define him as a shill for the fossil fuel industry and the status quo. He even trots out the figure of Michael Levi to give his piece the impression of consensus, though Mr. Levi's reverence for "the power of facts" seems to ignore a good many, particularly those of the well-established sort hostile to his thesis.
To avoid catastrophic global warming, the vast majority of untapped fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground. Fracking poses serious health risks with deadly and expensive outcomes, contributes to carbon emissions we can't afford, destabilizes ground structure and poisons our water supply. Wind and solar power are capable of powering America now, but under constant attack from the cash-bloated, zombie-like fossil fuel industry. These are just some of the powerful facts Mr. Levi and Mr. Nocera are neglecting to believe in.
38
Fracking poses health risks "with deadly...outcomes" is news to many of us who follow the issue closely. Can you please cite a case where someone has died from fracking? Also, if you want to know what is in fracking fluid (benzene and formaldehyde are not), just visit www.fracfocus.com and you can find the fluids used in each well around the country. For further reference, please review the recent EPA report on fracking and water risks. EPA found that there is no widespread or systemic contamination.
Joe Nocera's column is a mentally lazy approach to discuss the complex topic of Economics and Energy. He quotes a single source, Michael Levi, whom he says "believes in the power of facts". It is a fact that burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal. However, it is also a fact that burning natural gas or flaring natural gas in the extraction of shale oil still contributes to the increase in greenhouse gases that drive climate change.
If we calculate the effects of fossil fuel extraction/use and the short and long term costs of environmental changes that threaten all living species on earth, the economic facts are that reducing the burning of fossil fuels is an immediate imperative for all human beings everywhere.
Some European countries have taken the lead in committing to renewable energies (wind and solar) with great success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/germanys-carbon-emissions-fall-renew...
Virtually every state in the continental United States has more favorable solar conditions to generate electrical energy than Germany. As California and the American Southwest turn brown and our sources of clean water are depleted or contaminated we shall discover the "facts" of the economic and health costs of continued burning of fossil fuels.
If we calculate the effects of fossil fuel extraction/use and the short and long term costs of environmental changes that threaten all living species on earth, the economic facts are that reducing the burning of fossil fuels is an immediate imperative for all human beings everywhere.
Some European countries have taken the lead in committing to renewable energies (wind and solar) with great success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/germanys-carbon-emissions-fall-renew...
Virtually every state in the continental United States has more favorable solar conditions to generate electrical energy than Germany. As California and the American Southwest turn brown and our sources of clean water are depleted or contaminated we shall discover the "facts" of the economic and health costs of continued burning of fossil fuels.
48
I want to compliment you on your use of the term "mentally lazy." I think that's a good description. We are confronted with global warming--arguably the most serious problem humanity has ever faced--and Mr. Nocera engages in hand-waving and the use of labels such as "environmentalists" and "ideologues" to make his case. Well, actually, it isn't even his case--it's Michael Levi's case. Evidently, Mr. Nocera cannot be bothered to consult multiple sources on either shale gas fracking or climate change.
Reading through the comments it's fascinating to me that 100% of them are pro-investments in renewables. No one but no one argues for more gas drilling, more coal, or less renewables. Even granting that we Times readers may tend to be more pro-regulation just by temperament, it's interesting that public policy reflects almost NONE of the commenters' thinking. Do we need any evidence that our government reflects only the will of the corporations and not the will of We The People?
75
You have hit the nail on the head. Congress and the supremes are a danger to us all because they are fronts for the gas and oil industry. They rail against the meager cost of social services for our most vulnerable citizens while never blinking an eye about corporate hand-outs to the real "takers" in our country. It is Congress, for the most part (and we know who), that is "on the dole". Their salaries are chump change. It is corporate money they are really living on.
Factor in the true environmental costs of fracking and fossil fuels and the natural gas and oil produced quickly looses its price advantage over renewable energy sources. These costs include billions of gallons of clean water rendered unusable, potential pollution of our finite water supply by faulty storage wells, earthquake damage (including potential fracturing of said storage wells), air and noise pollution and roads damaged by heavy equipment. Then, of course, there is the trillion dollar war machine created to secure our access to middle eastern oil and that little thing called climate change with attendant drought, flood, famine, war and the massive population migration it causes with more to come.
Renewable solutions are off the grid solutions which is why the powers that be, including Mr. Nocera, have not supported them whole-heartedly even though we possess the know how to do it now. The change will come, but will need to come from a ground swell of individuals who can see their way forward out of a top down carbon economy.
Renewable solutions are off the grid solutions which is why the powers that be, including Mr. Nocera, have not supported them whole-heartedly even though we possess the know how to do it now. The change will come, but will need to come from a ground swell of individuals who can see their way forward out of a top down carbon economy.
14
Fossil fuel deniers live in a dream world: there is no "green" energy source, in the foreseeable future, that can provide the base load of electricity to meet the developing world's power needs. Texas is the nations largest producer of wind power and it only makes up a fraction of the grid, on top of killing thousands of birds. Solar only works when the sun is out, rendering it useless for significant portions of the day. No battery technology exists, to store loads effectively. Nuclear could provide the solution, but that's a no-go politically. Billions of people in China and India want air conditioning, televisions and washing machines, just like we have in the USA and Europe. Pretending like the world is going to go backwards is delusional.
2
Can we discuss this without dividing into camps: deniers VS believers? The problems we face are so serious that we need a clear path forward: facts and solutions. IT is true that a greater population on Earth combined with the desire for a modern lifestyle will increase our worldwide need for energy. A wonderful bi-partisan organization, Citizens Climate Lobby, is trying to find a path toward reducing use of fossil fuels while promoting research toward renewals so there is enough energy for all. Photovoltaic research is rapidly producing sensitive products that can even produce energy on cloudy days or on east/west roofs along batteries that can store energy for use at night. We must find a way to talk to each other constructively.
6
Things are always impossible until we make them possible.
And what do you propose to do when we run out of stored solar energy?
Education today includes environmental issues, clean energy development, and the use of alternative products that do not pollute air water and soil. Young people studying these topics should learn hard, fast and do deep research. They are going to need it.
6
Luis, education today has little to do with understanding the science global warming/climate change and environmental issues. The educational system and research is controlled by corporations who don't mind a carbon tax or efforts to protect the environment as long it is across the board and doesn't interfere with their sales and profit margins.
1
Renewable sources, other than hydro-power, need energy storage to match energy capture to energy end use. Batteries, including sophisticated hydrogen liberation followed by fuel cell electric generation, represent relatively mature technologies. So a dream based on gathering significant quantities of energy from wind and/or solar may never be realized. Also, the the life-cycle costs associated with wind and solar largely are a function of external per-market and maintenance energy inputs. Those energy inputs come in large part from hydrocarbons burned off-shore. They may not show-up in Obama's EPA CO2 accounting, but they do show-up in the atmosphere. The renewable energy dream much resembles a dog chasing its own tail. Or should that be "tall tale"?
2
You have simply conceded that population collapse from dependency on fossil fuel and water is inevitable. It won't be a pretty process.
Energy storage is anything but a "mature technology". The cost on even more conventional technologies is coming down fast and disruptive technologies are under study that will make you eat your words.
Like NeoCon war supporters (aka "Chickenhawks"), advocacy for shale gas production is easy for those unlikely to personally experience the environmental degradation.
In Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, the vast majority of the counties where fracking is occurring are also suffering from drought, according to an Associated Press analysis of industry-compiled fracking data and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's official drought designations.
Get the idea that we are just kicking the cost/damage can down the road without investing in a better plan?
In Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, the vast majority of the counties where fracking is occurring are also suffering from drought, according to an Associated Press analysis of industry-compiled fracking data and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's official drought designations.
Get the idea that we are just kicking the cost/damage can down the road without investing in a better plan?
26
Fracking=drought?
Come on, you're letting your hatred of conservatives cloud your common sense. And how much of that environmental degradation are you experiencing in Montauk sitting around sipping cocktails?
Who believes anything the Associated Press says anyway?
Come on, you're letting your hatred of conservatives cloud your common sense. And how much of that environmental degradation are you experiencing in Montauk sitting around sipping cocktails?
Who believes anything the Associated Press says anyway?
America's energy policy goes to the highest bidder, because our government and its agencies no longer work for the American people, they work for large enterprises that influence and buy them off. I don't just blame this on our government, but the people who continue to elect officials because they are on the same party bandwagon. We should not be in doubt, but throw them all out!
How soon we forget our American Revolution, the Civil War both were fought in-part over taxation. Now we are faced with another form of tax, carbon tax, to protect us from climate change. What a joke, it is just control used to line the pockets of those running the global economy.
How soon we forget our American Revolution, the Civil War both were fought in-part over taxation. Now we are faced with another form of tax, carbon tax, to protect us from climate change. What a joke, it is just control used to line the pockets of those running the global economy.
2
Here is the problem with your reasoning: "appropriate rules by both state and federal governments can mitigate the first two problems" may be true, but empty - when was the last time - no, actually, when was the first time that rules have ever been enforced - when have capitalists out for profit-at-any-cost behaved in a way that really cares about who lives and who dies?
If rules had any chance of working, we would have used them by now.
If rules had any chance of working, we would have used them by now.
42
Answer: CFCs. Remember the hole in the ozone layer. It's not there any more due to effective and well enforced regulations.
"Levi believes in the power of facts."
How refreshing. Would that producers and planners alike all operate with the same common understanding of "facts." The fact that they don't doesn't bode well for the feasibility of enacting the sort of policies to "reward emission cuts" no matter the energy source.
The whole topic of climate change and the role of energy source planning is intensely complicated--as complicated as today's newly announced Iran deal. The problem is today's political leaders prefer to operate by slogan and general ideology rather than studying the facts--which can be inconvenient little things that are hard to swallow.
How refreshing. Would that producers and planners alike all operate with the same common understanding of "facts." The fact that they don't doesn't bode well for the feasibility of enacting the sort of policies to "reward emission cuts" no matter the energy source.
The whole topic of climate change and the role of energy source planning is intensely complicated--as complicated as today's newly announced Iran deal. The problem is today's political leaders prefer to operate by slogan and general ideology rather than studying the facts--which can be inconvenient little things that are hard to swallow.
4
The missing piece of Mr. Levi's analysis is that the obvious path to a sustainable energy future is correctly to price carbon through a revenue neutral carbon tax. There is no better way to transition to alternative energies. Teeth gnashing aside, Mr. Levi is also naive about the politics of regulation - the road to "appropriate rules" is tortuous to say the least and it cannot pass through state regulators who are overwhelmed by industry power and money - but maybe he would at least agree that natural gas should pay its own way.
21
Yes, there is no better way to move the market in the right direction--to make the economy "tell the ecological truth"--than a revenue-neutral tax on carbon.
The Citizens' Climate Lobby is building a movement to support such a strategy for pricing carbon. Check it out at https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/.
I have a question for supporters of natural gas as a bridge fuel: why should we spend millions on this technology, with its increasingly expensive infrastructure required to eliminate methane leaks and other harmful consequences, when we could be going all-out in developing renewable energy? Solar and wind energy, especially, are ready to take off in the next decade or so to meet a major portion of the country's energy needs. Half of new capacity for generating electricity came from renewables last year, and that is with many states (like my state of Florida) putting all kinds of hurdles in the way of individuals and businesses purchasing solar.
The Citizens' Climate Lobby is building a movement to support such a strategy for pricing carbon. Check it out at https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/.
I have a question for supporters of natural gas as a bridge fuel: why should we spend millions on this technology, with its increasingly expensive infrastructure required to eliminate methane leaks and other harmful consequences, when we could be going all-out in developing renewable energy? Solar and wind energy, especially, are ready to take off in the next decade or so to meet a major portion of the country's energy needs. Half of new capacity for generating electricity came from renewables last year, and that is with many states (like my state of Florida) putting all kinds of hurdles in the way of individuals and businesses purchasing solar.
9
As a retired CIA economic analyst (1972-2003) who occasionally worked on energy issues, Mr. (Ms?) Bartle has it exactly right-- a carbon tax on fossil fuels (imposed gradually, of course, and in concert with other major CO2 emitting nations). This is one of the few areas where the free market doesn't work, because the CO2 is a "negative externality"--something that imposes a cost on society, but neither the producer or the consumer of the fossil fuel has any incentive to reduce that cost.
4
Allow me to join the carbon tax chorus. It's the ideal policy to drive the emission-reduction process that both Joe Nocera and Michael Levi want. I say "ideal" not in the partisan political sense (of course), but simply as a matter of economists' consensus. Dream this dream: a Republican candidate for president runs on an emissions-reductions platform, thereby dragging the vaunted American middle closer to the, well, middle.
2
I wonder if Mr. Levi got west of the Mississippi to North Dakota. The communities out there welcomed the disruption, have considerable experience with coal and have no clue about the environment and are climate change deniers of the first order. I agree with him that merely switching to nat gas without reducing emissions is stupidity writ large. I agree with Levi that gas is here to stay and if utilities replace coal with nat gas, we would reduce US carbon emissions by a third but that will not happen. Anything that produces energy at a lower cost usually increases the use. I, however, believe in the cost curve for renewable energy, particularly solar. No matter what utilities tell us, coal is not going to get any cheaper or any cleaner. Nat gas is temporarily cheaper. The real future is renewables and the technology of renewables continues to advance, driving down costs and eventually, money talks. The real use of government policy would be to make the use of fossil fuel energy more expensive than renewable energy and once that occurs, the market takes over and government policy can be phased out.
12
Mr. Nocera, I believe your surmise is correct; natural gas is a net blessing. But what we need to do is support the development of energy sources that do not emit carbon, until the point when these are better than natural gas or other fossil fuels on their own economic merits. These energy sources might include renewables, such as solar with hydrogen or another effective energy storage system, or advanced nuclear power. Then the solution to our energy and climate problems might unfold as did the solution to a bad problem with smog unfolded decades ago in cities such as Louisville, Kentucky. In that city, activists fought the coal people over low-quality coal and inefficient coal fireplaces for decades to mitigate the smog, but they never won that battle. But when central heating and natural gas appeared the problem quickly resolved.
4
"The hard truth is that if the country were to move away from natural gas, the real winner would be coal, not wind or solar".
There is zero evidence for this statement. Solar is now cheaper than either gas or coal. A Nevada utility just signed a PPA for $.04/kwh, on the heels of a $.06/kwh deal for a bigger plant in Dubai. Wind prices are similar. Gas and coal are both well north of these figures, even without a carbon tax, or accounting for their greenhouse gases and pollution.
Solar and wind have not taken off due to mischievous lawsuits from the gas and coal industries, hiding behind "green" NGO's, and erratic support for Congressional subsidies- modest compared to those handed out for fossil fuels, whose owners control the government. Meanwhile, the desert is far more endangered from coal and gas plants, which emit vast amounts of air pollution and contaminate water:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2014/07/mike-roddy-solar-sab...
We could transform our energy system by 2025 if the people running this country weren't so afraid of shuttering coal and gas plants. This is exactly like perpetuating horses and buggies in 1915. A joke, with the punch line this time being planetary catastrophe, which also won't help those who didn't strand any cash cow investments.
[email protected]
There is zero evidence for this statement. Solar is now cheaper than either gas or coal. A Nevada utility just signed a PPA for $.04/kwh, on the heels of a $.06/kwh deal for a bigger plant in Dubai. Wind prices are similar. Gas and coal are both well north of these figures, even without a carbon tax, or accounting for their greenhouse gases and pollution.
Solar and wind have not taken off due to mischievous lawsuits from the gas and coal industries, hiding behind "green" NGO's, and erratic support for Congressional subsidies- modest compared to those handed out for fossil fuels, whose owners control the government. Meanwhile, the desert is far more endangered from coal and gas plants, which emit vast amounts of air pollution and contaminate water:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2014/07/mike-roddy-solar-sab...
We could transform our energy system by 2025 if the people running this country weren't so afraid of shuttering coal and gas plants. This is exactly like perpetuating horses and buggies in 1915. A joke, with the punch line this time being planetary catastrophe, which also won't help those who didn't strand any cash cow investments.
[email protected]
80
So what do we do in the Northeast, where you can have two straight wees of no sun and no wind?
1
If the goal is to reward reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, then the right policy is one which distinguishes between energy sources, coal, natural gas and renewables, strictly based on the amount of carbon emitted in their lifecycle.
That policy is a price on carbon, levied at the first point of sale and based on the amount of carbon in the fuel. It strikes the appropriate balance between rewarding fracking as a provider of relatively low-carbon fuel (relative to coal), and yet providing greater incentive to much lower-carbon renewables. It creates a powerful incentive to tap the greatest resource of all, which is energy conservation. In comparison to a price on carbon emissions, subsidies or regulations favoring a particular technology are like pushing on a string - too little traction to get the job done.
The carbon price should start low and rise over time, allowing us to transition away from fossil fuels. If the revenues from the carbon price are returned to households as a dividend, it will avoid harming low-income Americans. This type of policy has recently been endorsed by the Times, is consistent with the Pope's call for stewardship of our common home. It is increasingly favored by those on the left and right, in light of increasing evidence that we will face a catastrophe if we do not mitigate carbon emissions. A number of groups which are serious about doing something about climate have endorsed this policy, chief among them Citizens' Climate Lobby.
That policy is a price on carbon, levied at the first point of sale and based on the amount of carbon in the fuel. It strikes the appropriate balance between rewarding fracking as a provider of relatively low-carbon fuel (relative to coal), and yet providing greater incentive to much lower-carbon renewables. It creates a powerful incentive to tap the greatest resource of all, which is energy conservation. In comparison to a price on carbon emissions, subsidies or regulations favoring a particular technology are like pushing on a string - too little traction to get the job done.
The carbon price should start low and rise over time, allowing us to transition away from fossil fuels. If the revenues from the carbon price are returned to households as a dividend, it will avoid harming low-income Americans. This type of policy has recently been endorsed by the Times, is consistent with the Pope's call for stewardship of our common home. It is increasingly favored by those on the left and right, in light of increasing evidence that we will face a catastrophe if we do not mitigate carbon emissions. A number of groups which are serious about doing something about climate have endorsed this policy, chief among them Citizens' Climate Lobby.
6
Excellant. A revenue neutral carbon tax also, it needs its corollaries, a carbon content tax on imported goods and a refundable tax credit on processes that remove/sequester carbon the most persistent greenhouse gas. The former to prevent exporting our more carbon intensive industries to less regulated countries and induce those countries to reduce their own emissions. The credit will encourage innovation and processes that sequester carbon.
Such a program would have a very broad reach, catching virtually any carbon emission, including indirect such as the carbon released by trucking vegetables from California to the Northeast or the production of carbon in producing the renewable power equipment or nuclear plants. Second, taxation imposes a minimal regulatory burden (everyone is taxed already) a
Such a program would have a very broad reach, catching virtually any carbon emission, including indirect such as the carbon released by trucking vegetables from California to the Northeast or the production of carbon in producing the renewable power equipment or nuclear plants. Second, taxation imposes a minimal regulatory burden (everyone is taxed already) a
"My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons: It has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth."
But you're a complete idiot. Why would we care about your views, when it's obvious that you lack a scientific and economic understanding of the consequences of warming?
What it amounts to is that you don't see anything much happening, and rather than being guided by the scientific projections and what economists say about the enormous cost of a crash program to replace current power plants and vehicles when things start to become desperate, you are guided by your immediate sense perceptions. You are the proverbial frog boiling in water, and for some unaccountable reason, the Times pays you to tell other frogs how warm and comfy the water is.
But you're a complete idiot. Why would we care about your views, when it's obvious that you lack a scientific and economic understanding of the consequences of warming?
What it amounts to is that you don't see anything much happening, and rather than being guided by the scientific projections and what economists say about the enormous cost of a crash program to replace current power plants and vehicles when things start to become desperate, you are guided by your immediate sense perceptions. You are the proverbial frog boiling in water, and for some unaccountable reason, the Times pays you to tell other frogs how warm and comfy the water is.
46
This comment gets points for candor. NYC will have difficulty with +20 ft of sea level, as anticipated here by a scientist at the University of Colorado:
http://newyork.thecityatlas.org/people/james-white/
Video of James White speaking at the American Geophysical Union is at the foot of the post.
The first five feet will compromise much of the subway system, which could be a social and economic tipping point for the city.
http://newyork.thecityatlas.org/people/james-white/
Video of James White speaking at the American Geophysical Union is at the foot of the post.
The first five feet will compromise much of the subway system, which could be a social and economic tipping point for the city.
5
Richard, exactly. In practice, New York City will have to build that sea wall that they're currently pretending they won't have to build because the pols don't want to present the public with the bill. The cost, of course, will be astronomical. And New York City will actually be one of the lucky places, since it has a high enough population density to make it economically viable to save much (though not all) of its land.
Sadly, Nocera's stupidity is the now the international norm rather than the exception: it isn't happening today, so we can worry about it later. Anyone who wants a scentifically and economically informed feel for what can and should be done should read the IPCC report, rather than the opinion of a columnist whose understanding of the issues is childish at best.
Sadly, Nocera's stupidity is the now the international norm rather than the exception: it isn't happening today, so we can worry about it later. Anyone who wants a scentifically and economically informed feel for what can and should be done should read the IPCC report, rather than the opinion of a columnist whose understanding of the issues is childish at best.
2
This is just the latest 20 ft. nonsense. back in 1985, James Hansen predicted that wall street and the West Side highway would be covered with a 20 ft rise in sea level in 25 years. The actual rise has been about 2 inches!
Sea levels continue to creep up at 2 millimeters per year. A this rate it will take more than 2,000 years to reach 20 ft.
Now that the warming has stopped for the past 18 years and world ice is increasing, even that may be too alarming. Check the RSS satellite world temperature data.
Sea levels continue to creep up at 2 millimeters per year. A this rate it will take more than 2,000 years to reach 20 ft.
Now that the warming has stopped for the past 18 years and world ice is increasing, even that may be too alarming. Check the RSS satellite world temperature data.
1
This is the same old O&G lobby strategy -- privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
The problem Nocera *never* ever addresses in any of these pro-industry articles is that the losses are long-term. Very long-term, not just years, but decades and centuries.
Whenever a well is drilled, it creates a pathway through the aquifer system (a few hundred feet below) thousands of feet into the earth. The first year a well is fracked, the gas that is extracted is fabulously profitable, but the next year, production decreases by at least a third, and every year thereafter it goes down. It's called the "depletion curve." In less than a decade, most of these wells no longer produce enough gas to make it worth the extraction costs, even though as much as half or more of the gas remains, along with much of the nasty toxic industrial fluids that the gas company has pumped into it! Then the wells are capped with cement and abandoned.
And then the cement cracks over time, some in a few years, others in decades, the rest in centuries. And the remaining gas (and toxic chemicals) slowly migrate upward through the pipeline toward the surface and the aquifer system. Guess who will have to deal with the inevitable contamination? Not the gas companies.
The problem Nocera *never* ever addresses in any of these pro-industry articles is that the losses are long-term. Very long-term, not just years, but decades and centuries.
Whenever a well is drilled, it creates a pathway through the aquifer system (a few hundred feet below) thousands of feet into the earth. The first year a well is fracked, the gas that is extracted is fabulously profitable, but the next year, production decreases by at least a third, and every year thereafter it goes down. It's called the "depletion curve." In less than a decade, most of these wells no longer produce enough gas to make it worth the extraction costs, even though as much as half or more of the gas remains, along with much of the nasty toxic industrial fluids that the gas company has pumped into it! Then the wells are capped with cement and abandoned.
And then the cement cracks over time, some in a few years, others in decades, the rest in centuries. And the remaining gas (and toxic chemicals) slowly migrate upward through the pipeline toward the surface and the aquifer system. Guess who will have to deal with the inevitable contamination? Not the gas companies.
148
There is an alternative to hydrofracking, called gasfracking. It uses propane or butane instead of water as the high-pressure injection fluid, and the injected hydrocarbons are recovered along with the produced ones. Gasfracking has been held back mainly by economics, especially in natural gas fields, because propane and butane sell at prices based on crude oil, which have been much higher per BTU than natural gas prices. There are also some technical issues, and not all of the injected gas is recovered, at least not right away. The main impediment is the fact that market prices of oil, gas, water, and air do not reflect their full social and environmental costs.
5
Yes, absolutely, the argument that burning natural gas emits about half of the CO2 per kWh that coal does is correct. But making this switch does nothing to help the planet's health. It's a bit like a doctor telling an alcoholic to stop drinking hard liquor and offering the patient to get drunk on cheap wine instead.
Scientists have been worrying about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning and its connection to global warming at least since 1896, when Arrhenius published on the subject. But along profit motives trumped the need to listen to them. We are currently adding ~15 billion (with a "b") tons of CO2 each year to the atmosphere, and the availability of cheap natural gas will not slow this down. [Look up "Keeling Curve" on Wikipedia]
The trouble is that we may reach a tipping point, at which we cannot revert the outcomes anymore, even at zero carbon emission. About 251 million years ago a huge spike in CO2 emissions (from volcanic eruptions) started a chain reaction on Earth (increase in temperature by ~10 C, more water vapor in the air, perhaps the release of methane hydrates from the warming ocean), which ultimately wiped out 95% of all species on Earth. It took the planet about 100 million years to recover. The trouble is that even our best climate computer models cannot exactly predict the entry point and then the course of this runaway sequence of events. Caution!!!
Scientists have been worrying about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning and its connection to global warming at least since 1896, when Arrhenius published on the subject. But along profit motives trumped the need to listen to them. We are currently adding ~15 billion (with a "b") tons of CO2 each year to the atmosphere, and the availability of cheap natural gas will not slow this down. [Look up "Keeling Curve" on Wikipedia]
The trouble is that we may reach a tipping point, at which we cannot revert the outcomes anymore, even at zero carbon emission. About 251 million years ago a huge spike in CO2 emissions (from volcanic eruptions) started a chain reaction on Earth (increase in temperature by ~10 C, more water vapor in the air, perhaps the release of methane hydrates from the warming ocean), which ultimately wiped out 95% of all species on Earth. It took the planet about 100 million years to recover. The trouble is that even our best climate computer models cannot exactly predict the entry point and then the course of this runaway sequence of events. Caution!!!
29
The biggest problem I have with this analysis is that Joe and his guru give no concrete recommendation on how to direct users from flipping to renewables from nat gas. The coal to nat gas switch is easy, it costs less. But if a new method for extracting synthetic fuel from coal came about and it was more cost effective than nat gas the flip would go back to coal. Bottom line, extractive industries and their using clients must account fully for all externalities. Until we fully account for externalities and the destruction of the common we all lose, except for the extractors.
12
Two aspects of fracking's fit are under estimated. First, it isn't just CO2 vs coal, its also the environmental cost of getting coal out of the ground. Strip mines, acid runoff, sink holes and black lung need to be considered.
Second, until systems to store energy in large scale are installed, the intermittent nature of wind and solar will require fossil fuel backup. Natural gas is the best fit for this role as it can more easily ramp up and down.
Second, until systems to store energy in large scale are installed, the intermittent nature of wind and solar will require fossil fuel backup. Natural gas is the best fit for this role as it can more easily ramp up and down.
8
@ JMM Worcester MA - JMM if and when my comment is accepted (filed a few minutes ago, now 7:15 in Worcester) you can read to learn what Joe and you apparently are not aware of. Ground source geothermal heat pump (and other heat pump) technology run 24/7 and do so with the best results of any tecbnology. High tech incineration of solid municipal waste also runs24/7 and with systems with the design standard in Sweden can generate electricity or heat whole cities (my two, for example, Linköping and Göteborg) far more environmentally sound than frack gas. I know of one such system in MA not too far from you, Millbury MA. I have visited their ash disposal site but not yet the plant itself, so I do not know if it meets Swedish standards or not. Millbury plant generates electricity whereas Swedish plants produce heat to send hot water throughout each city, providing a system far superior to anything you can find in the USA - based on my spending 3/4 of my life in MA-RI-NY.
And a footnote: I write from Sweden thanks to visiting my Swedish farmor who lived above us in Rumford, RI when I was a child.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
And a footnote: I write from Sweden thanks to visiting my Swedish farmor who lived above us in Rumford, RI when I was a child.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Mr. Nocera is sounding a little bit more reasonable on the issue of fracking, but not reasonable enough. Lately the news from scientists (not environmentalists) is that we may be past the tipping point. Therefore, I still believe we must look at the complete picture on tracking, which includes its impact on our water, the poisons it puts into the soil, the clear cutting of forests required to perform it. Unfortunately, Nocera believes the myth that regulation will keep the fracking industry clean. Not only is that impossible, given the definition of fracking is to harm the place where it's done, but industry cheats and gets around regulations all the time. There are so many wonderful renewable technologies being put into practice that despite his new reasonableness on this issue, I'm still left wondering why Mr. Nocera keeps looking for new ways to promote this ultimately backward technology. We need visionaries not faux realists.
54
Dear Mr. Nocera,
Having no progeny, I should applaud your column since it means I can drive whatever the hell I feel like, at whatever speed is allowable, sucking up as much "fossil fuel" as available since it's not really "my problem". If this whole mess is going to be awash in rising seas or choking to death at the same time, that's not happening for 20 years or so (So I'm informed).
Hence, at the ripe age of 87, I can watch all the children of the current batch of "non voters" and "soccer moms" deal with the issue. Or not, as your column seems to thread some kind of line between having fuel or having a decent life with the people owning the "fossil fuels" also owning "the government".
Unfortunately, I do CARE and to label anyone concerned with the environment an "ideologue" is merely playing the same tune people like the Koch Brothers have been peddling for years.
In short, you and your buddy from the "Council on Foreign Relations" are both wrong especially if either one of you have an interest, ie, children/grandchildren, in what this planet will look like in 20 years.
Mr. Levi missed the fourth rationale: the amount of profit driving the idea of "fracking" versus "sustainable energy". Then again, thinkers in Ivory Towers seldom get out in the real world, a world, in this country, driven almost exclusively by greed.
Having no progeny, I should applaud your column since it means I can drive whatever the hell I feel like, at whatever speed is allowable, sucking up as much "fossil fuel" as available since it's not really "my problem". If this whole mess is going to be awash in rising seas or choking to death at the same time, that's not happening for 20 years or so (So I'm informed).
Hence, at the ripe age of 87, I can watch all the children of the current batch of "non voters" and "soccer moms" deal with the issue. Or not, as your column seems to thread some kind of line between having fuel or having a decent life with the people owning the "fossil fuels" also owning "the government".
Unfortunately, I do CARE and to label anyone concerned with the environment an "ideologue" is merely playing the same tune people like the Koch Brothers have been peddling for years.
In short, you and your buddy from the "Council on Foreign Relations" are both wrong especially if either one of you have an interest, ie, children/grandchildren, in what this planet will look like in 20 years.
Mr. Levi missed the fourth rationale: the amount of profit driving the idea of "fracking" versus "sustainable energy". Then again, thinkers in Ivory Towers seldom get out in the real world, a world, in this country, driven almost exclusively by greed.
254
Spot on Mr Petro!
The real source of Oil Addiction is Auto Addiction and endless Wars!
Yet somehow Environmentalists are unlikely to confront these head on as trenchantly pointed out by Naomi Klein's fantastic book :
"This Changes Everything". Auto Addiction accounts for 70% of US oil usage, directly generates 38% of US greenhouse emissions (in NJ under Gov Christie it is now 47%!! After his endless cuts to Green Transit).
Auto Addiction results in 30,000 deaths per year, hundreds of thousands of injuries. Auto Addiction takes 10 times the green space of Rail or Green Transit and is the second leading cause of ER visits for accidents.
We are feeding 70% of our corn to cars instead of people while people are hungry all over the planet - one of the causes of the Arab Spring was the sudden increase in grain prices. Yet we continue to expand roads like the totally foolish new Autos only Tappan Zee bridge or the $7 Billion wasted by Gov Christie on expanding highways in NJ while cutting NJ Transit operating budget 90%. A number of studies have shown Auto Addiction's to obesity indeed hours spent in a car were 90% correlated with obesity.
The Oil companies and the Koch brothers have always been in collusion with the Auto industry and were part of the Trolley Conspiracy between GM, Firestone, Chevron and others which was found guilty 3 times of destroying the US trolley systems. The Pentagon is the world's biggest greenhouse emitter and consumes 6% of US oil usage.
The real source of Oil Addiction is Auto Addiction and endless Wars!
Yet somehow Environmentalists are unlikely to confront these head on as trenchantly pointed out by Naomi Klein's fantastic book :
"This Changes Everything". Auto Addiction accounts for 70% of US oil usage, directly generates 38% of US greenhouse emissions (in NJ under Gov Christie it is now 47%!! After his endless cuts to Green Transit).
Auto Addiction results in 30,000 deaths per year, hundreds of thousands of injuries. Auto Addiction takes 10 times the green space of Rail or Green Transit and is the second leading cause of ER visits for accidents.
We are feeding 70% of our corn to cars instead of people while people are hungry all over the planet - one of the causes of the Arab Spring was the sudden increase in grain prices. Yet we continue to expand roads like the totally foolish new Autos only Tappan Zee bridge or the $7 Billion wasted by Gov Christie on expanding highways in NJ while cutting NJ Transit operating budget 90%. A number of studies have shown Auto Addiction's to obesity indeed hours spent in a car were 90% correlated with obesity.
The Oil companies and the Koch brothers have always been in collusion with the Auto industry and were part of the Trolley Conspiracy between GM, Firestone, Chevron and others which was found guilty 3 times of destroying the US trolley systems. The Pentagon is the world's biggest greenhouse emitter and consumes 6% of US oil usage.
3
The Council on Foreign Relations (no quotation marks needed) is no ivory tower. It's members are drawn from a wide swathe of society, It's board of directors is like a Who's Who of American business. Google the CFR sometime.
Absolutely agree, greed is by far the most destructive factor on earth, the greedy simply do not care about anything else.
1
There is little disagreement that natural gas is preferable to coal. The problem is that the energy industry is allergic to sensible regulation of any kind, and the government, both local and federal, is always a day late and dollar short when it comes to doing its job as regulators. Fracking is no exception. What Mr. Nocera doesn't mention in his column is the destruction that fracking causes to the local environment and communities in the form of groundwater contamination, destruction of habitat, and abuse of local infrastructure. For most Americans, fracking is out of sight and out of mind because it is done in poor rural areas no one cares about except the people who live there. I wonder how Mr. Nocera would feel about the issue if a gas company decided to put a drilling rig in his backyard.
116
Nocera & Levi note that the natural gas problems can be solved by regulation. They note that the variable production of renewables means backup fuel is needed. Natural Gas is easy to turn on & off, dealing with variable production.
We need to have a stiff surcharge on coal, a modest surcharge on natural gas & NO surcharge on renewable energy. Conservation would occur due to higher price of power; note this approach has worked with auto fuel efficiency; it would work better with stiffer gasoline taxes ala Europe.
I recomend a 0 surcharge/tax on renewables, a surchage of $1 for natural gas & $4 for coal on the approriate measure of electrical power. We also would need a grade in period, say 5 years.
Note: most rural people embrace fracking for the money, at least until they endure the side effects.
We need to have a stiff surcharge on coal, a modest surcharge on natural gas & NO surcharge on renewable energy. Conservation would occur due to higher price of power; note this approach has worked with auto fuel efficiency; it would work better with stiffer gasoline taxes ala Europe.
I recomend a 0 surcharge/tax on renewables, a surchage of $1 for natural gas & $4 for coal on the approriate measure of electrical power. We also would need a grade in period, say 5 years.
Note: most rural people embrace fracking for the money, at least until they endure the side effects.
Actually, yes he does mention in several paragraphs the local concerns with fracking. Did you read the article before commenting?
And what does Levi say about nuclear power? Joe himself gives it barely a mention, shuts down the very idea by the absence of comment. How ridiculous the journalists will seem in e decade or so, when the general population will finally be told that nuclear is the safest, cheapest solution to long term needs at commercial power levels (some really believe solar panels on the residence roof will solve our problem!) with zero carbon. Years of false facts and hysterical reaction to nuclear power have polluted the perception of many. I am hopeful that will ultimately change, when the staggering mistreatment of plain facts (or the simple omission of any reasonable comment) will stop, but the question remains, will it be too late.
8
Nuclear power is abidingly dangerous to a degree unmatched by any other technology we have developed. Its "spent" fuel can never be safely disposed of. The highly replicable Fukushima disaster is ongoing. The cores are now known to have breached containment. Further, nuclear is ridiculously expensive. exelon and Energy executives are dumping their own stocks. I could go on and on about thermal pollution and regulatory capture, but in a nutshell, no, nuclear isn't going to save us.
31
There's only a one word response necessary to your statement,
Fukushima
Fukushima
2
It's too expensive.
1
Here is my main worry about fracking… besides undermining our bedrock and causing earthquakes (as if that alone is not frightening enough)..
water
Globally, we are facing water shortages. In areas of our country regionally, we are seeing water shortages, and also spoilage of clean water whether by coal tailings, agricultural run-off and other chemical contamination. Climate change is already changing weather patterns..as aquifers are drying up.
Most humans can live without food for a week or more. Without water, we are dead within days. There is nothing we can use for water but water.
This is not the best use of the clean water we have available. Our population is growing, and taking huge amounts of clean water, mixing it with poisons and shooting it into rock is not safeguarding our shared water supply for the future, if we are to have one.
water
Globally, we are facing water shortages. In areas of our country regionally, we are seeing water shortages, and also spoilage of clean water whether by coal tailings, agricultural run-off and other chemical contamination. Climate change is already changing weather patterns..as aquifers are drying up.
Most humans can live without food for a week or more. Without water, we are dead within days. There is nothing we can use for water but water.
This is not the best use of the clean water we have available. Our population is growing, and taking huge amounts of clean water, mixing it with poisons and shooting it into rock is not safeguarding our shared water supply for the future, if we are to have one.
310
There are technologies available that enable water treatment where most of the water can be reclaimed. The are expensive, but in the long run, save money, because the eliminate the need for long haul trucking.
1
Key phrase in your comment: "They are expensive". There are no regulations requiring treatment, which are not going to be forthcoming, so such treatment is never going to occur.
14
They actually save money because the cost to dump this stuff is high and getting higher. But they have to be built first and that takes an enormous investment. Companies are always happy with the status quo. The government will have to step in and I think eventually it will. However, if we have a Republican president you may see a relaxation in the rules and the environmental problems will skyrocket.
Where do increased earthquake activity and pollution of ground water supplies fit into the analysis? Lowering carbon emissions is critical, but one thing we have learned is that few solutions do not cross boundaries into other complex problem areas that cannot be ignored.
57
It is good to see an article about the positives of shale gas. It is here to stay. However, we need more regulation to insure that the environment is not damaged by the spoils of drilling. The US and states must enact laws now that require that frack water that is returned from wells be treated so it can be released into the environment without harm. There are technologies available to turn this water into clean water and usable salt with very little waster. Companies are not pursuing this because the initial cost of treatment plants is very high, so instead they are trucking the waste over the infrastructure and dumping it into wells in West Virginia. Eventually there will be no space left for this water.
This gas is cheap, clean and plentiful. It is time for everyone to take their heads out of the sand, face the problems and solve them.
This gas is cheap, clean and plentiful. It is time for everyone to take their heads out of the sand, face the problems and solve them.
11
Spoken like an industry apologist.
2
Levi's notion that shale gas can be a bridge to reduction of emissions makes sense, and in the present political climate and economic dependence on fossil fuels, that may be the best we can hope for in the short term. But climate change is a monster that we can't keep on feeding.
If we agree with Levi, in the short term we need STRONG economic incentives to get away from coal, including significant penalties for it use, AND STRONG economic incentives to get away from fossil fuels.
I don't agree with Joe's concluding paragraph - it's logical conclusion leads us down the wrong road.
The Pope's got it right.
If we agree with Levi, in the short term we need STRONG economic incentives to get away from coal, including significant penalties for it use, AND STRONG economic incentives to get away from fossil fuels.
I don't agree with Joe's concluding paragraph - it's logical conclusion leads us down the wrong road.
The Pope's got it right.
127
Using natural gas as a bridge between coal and renewable power is reasonable, but if you lived where people wanted to frack and dump the radioactive, earthquake-causing fluid, you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense.
181
Isn't it funny that by law we are not allowed to know what chemicals the frackers are pumping into the ground, while if you spill a little used motor oil the EPA will be all over you? Do you think there might conceivably be a reason for this strange anomaly? Some sort of stupid bureaucratic oversight no doubt. Don't you agree?
2
We all know that natural gas is here to stay, but the discussion should always be how to use less of it, not more of it. Replacing as much coal and natural gas with solar and wind should be the new american obsession and that should be concurrent with the coal->natural gas conversion. Nobody should gravitate towards fossil use or another, an effort should be made to conserve them and ultimately leave them in the ground where they should be.
174
>
Pragmatism is not about means it is about ends. The ends of fracking are cheap carbon fuels. The ends of cheap carbon fuel are more CO2 into the atmosphere and a retarding of renewable energies. The ends of those are the beginning to the end of human life as we know it.
"The [bourgeoisie] have learned something from pragmatism. Even their sentences no longer have meaning, only purpose”.
Adorno & Horkheimer
Note: Adorno & Horkheimer used the word fascist instead of bourgeoisie. I substituted to avoid the Times censors, and it is a distinction without much difference.
Pragmatism is not about means it is about ends. The ends of fracking are cheap carbon fuels. The ends of cheap carbon fuel are more CO2 into the atmosphere and a retarding of renewable energies. The ends of those are the beginning to the end of human life as we know it.
"The [bourgeoisie] have learned something from pragmatism. Even their sentences no longer have meaning, only purpose”.
Adorno & Horkheimer
Note: Adorno & Horkheimer used the word fascist instead of bourgeoisie. I substituted to avoid the Times censors, and it is a distinction without much difference.
23
Adorno and Horkheimer are not authorities on the meaning of pragmatism, committing the usual mistake of equating it with "practical." It is more appropriately understood as a relation between a problem and its solution. If you're unsatisfied with the usual American sources as to its meaning, such as James or Dewey, or the very much living John McDermott, why not try Karl Otto-Apel or Gerard Deledalle, Jurgen Habermas, or the very much alive Hans Joas?
Ah, now the facts emerge: the real problem with shale gas is that it enables economic growth! The horror!
4
Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell. Someone else (Abbey I think) may have said this but I've been saying this ever since I learnt developmental biology.
Even just simple growth is part of the problem. The reasons we're in the predicament and facing a serious bottleneck when it comes to the survival of our species is due to our growth, our success even, if you will.
I have seen this on a petri dish several time: bacteria that grow without constraint exhaust their supply of nutrients and die off. An infectious agent that kills off all its host cells by growing (multiplying) endlessly also assures its own demise. We need to learn to live sustainably, not seek more economic growth.
This is really not an easy problem to solve and I suspect it may be too late already.
Understanding why we're here is a necessary step to leading a good life.
Even just simple growth is part of the problem. The reasons we're in the predicament and facing a serious bottleneck when it comes to the survival of our species is due to our growth, our success even, if you will.
I have seen this on a petri dish several time: bacteria that grow without constraint exhaust their supply of nutrients and die off. An infectious agent that kills off all its host cells by growing (multiplying) endlessly also assures its own demise. We need to learn to live sustainably, not seek more economic growth.
This is really not an easy problem to solve and I suspect it may be too late already.
Understanding why we're here is a necessary step to leading a good life.
3