The author leaks crocodile tears for the sap (farmer) whose property rights are abridged by coercive conversion. She spares no thought for the property rights of the landowner who wants to sell her right-of-way but is forbidden to do so by the very same logic.
Even if one were to accept the worst-case propositions of the climate-change fantasists, the property rights argument must surely ring the most hollow of all the specious defenses of their fiction.
Even if one were to accept the worst-case propositions of the climate-change fantasists, the property rights argument must surely ring the most hollow of all the specious defenses of their fiction.
2
Nothing in this piece is honest - the writer simply does not want energy to be used by other people. The streams crossed and trees cut down are a tiny fraction of the terrain crossed and the need of people for reliable, cheap and clean energy is great. Fracking is the best friend of the American people, providing them with jobs, heat, light and fuel for modern life.
2
Activists oppose nuclear power and want to shut down all nuclear plants anywhere in the Northeast. They talk about the virtues of renewable energy, but oppose wind power whenever they have to actually look at the windmills. Solar power works great in Arizona, but not so well in the Northeast (and you can be sure there will be complaints about how solar panels look on quaint old Tudor houses). So what sort of power, exactly, do the activists support? Dirty coal?
2
Because everything is politics, it comes back to our leaders.
One pushed for fracking around the world and is a proponent here in the US.
The other has said unconditionally NO to fracking.
Easy choice.
Sanders 2016
Get! Out! and Vote1
#NotMeUs
One pushed for fracking around the world and is a proponent here in the US.
The other has said unconditionally NO to fracking.
Easy choice.
Sanders 2016
Get! Out! and Vote1
#NotMeUs
2
The only way natural gas can be a "bridge" to renewables is to drive coal completely out of business. Then when that job is done it will be time to drive OPEC petroleum out of business by replacing gasoline with liquid nat gas in oxide fuel cells. Then when that job is done it will be
time to switch over to solar cracked hydrogen , stop using natural gas, and leave the remaining gas, oil and coal in the ground forever.
time to switch over to solar cracked hydrogen , stop using natural gas, and leave the remaining gas, oil and coal in the ground forever.
1
Pipelines must consider ecological concerns, it is good policy to do so. However, it is very bad policy to attack pipelines that are going to provide clean natural gas at a cheaper rate improving the lives of millions by reducing the burning of coal.
2
Environmental NIMBYism, the new black. Sure, let's price the poorest folks out of the energy market. Let's make their jobs disappear because of your desire for virtue signalling. Let's offer utopian visions of the sacred dyad of wind and solar (when you figure out baseload and energy storage, we can actually have a debate). In the meantime, the realists among us need to have an energy policy that's not based on unicorns.
3
Every regulator who votes against natural gas should be mandated to disclose if they themselves have gas service and be forced to unhook.
3
My "takeaway" from this article is that eminent domain laws must be changed so they serve the public, without cpnflating the public interest with commercial interests.
4
Being from PA, I am both sad and ashamed. My deepest sympathy to the Holleran family. It is stories like this which make me despise the government and big business. They should've found another route before destruction of a multi-generation valuable family business. I only hope this family was generously compensated for their tremendous loss.
5
Sure, we can go to renewables such as solar and wind, give up on oil and gas, and then watch what happens when the cost of electricity and other energy sources triples. One thing that can then be predicted with certainty: the Democratic party, whose adherents are pushing in this direction, will be voted out of office so fast it will make your head spin.
1
It is a shame to ruin our environment and add to global warming so that we can ship fracked gas to Canada and/or China. Doesn't anybody in industry or government care about the environment our children will inherit??
"When gas is blasted out of the earth by industrial machinery and chemicals, there is nothing “natural” about it."
Karenna wants only "natural", unadulterated sources of energy?
Unicorns on treadmills perhaps?
Fracking is killing the coal and nuclear power industries and in time will give way to solar. Be Happy.
Karenna wants only "natural", unadulterated sources of energy?
Unicorns on treadmills perhaps?
Fracking is killing the coal and nuclear power industries and in time will give way to solar. Be Happy.
1
What can a reader do to help prevent this pipeline from being built?
I wonder about Ms. Gore's opening anecdote. The Fifth Amendment's takings clause requires "just compensation" for takings under eminent domain. Yet this story strongly implies that Federal Marshals came onto the Holleran's land and just took it. What was the compensation given to the Hollerans? If none, there is a constitutionally inviolate claim for the Hollerans against the government and/or the pipeline company. If the Hollerans were paid, and Ms. Gore failed to know or note that, well, the rest of the article becomes suspect, and I am as strongly anti-fracking as anybody, and Naomi Oreskes was a high school classmate of mine, one of the best produced by a highly regarded school.
1
Anyone who wants to get more informed about this issue, rather than just spouting talking points, with little content, should get familiar with their state's Independent System Operator website. Here is NY's:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/graphs/index....
It is not as informative as California's, which shows by time of day, forecasted power needs, power supply available, actual demand, and the mix of sources. You can actually see by time of day how much solar power, wind power, etc. is contributing to meet power needs. If you look from day to day, you can see the variability and begin to understand what utilities are dealing with in trying to keep the lights on while being mandated to use power sources like wind and solar that don't generate power when, and in the amounts, you want just because they have been built. Scroll down to see the power supply by source by time of day.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html#history
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/graphs/index....
It is not as informative as California's, which shows by time of day, forecasted power needs, power supply available, actual demand, and the mix of sources. You can actually see by time of day how much solar power, wind power, etc. is contributing to meet power needs. If you look from day to day, you can see the variability and begin to understand what utilities are dealing with in trying to keep the lights on while being mandated to use power sources like wind and solar that don't generate power when, and in the amounts, you want just because they have been built. Scroll down to see the power supply by source by time of day.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html#history
3
I would love to know about contributions made by the fracking industry to any candidate or official talking about natural gas being a "bridge." This is some good copy written by the industry to make it sound so temporary and concealing the very long term effects. Let's start this "research" about the "bridge" euphemism with Hillary Clinton who used it many times this past week in NY. What happened to the maple farmers is what makes us all so angry and clamoring for a change in how "we" go about running this great country.
2
The pipeline would cross nearly 300 creeks and streams and necessitate cutting 700,000 trees.
We just need to get used to the fact that modern living , with all its conveniences, doesn't need trees and creeks. If we wanted to keep those, then we should have stayed in our caves where we belonged.
All of our fingerprints are all over this. Invariably, over time, NIMBY has to eventually find its way to each of own. The world's only so big, and nothing comes without a cost, unfortunately.
We just need to get used to the fact that modern living , with all its conveniences, doesn't need trees and creeks. If we wanted to keep those, then we should have stayed in our caves where we belonged.
All of our fingerprints are all over this. Invariably, over time, NIMBY has to eventually find its way to each of own. The world's only so big, and nothing comes without a cost, unfortunately.
2
We should have a 50% tax on all natural gas used in states that do not permit fracking or obstruct the passage of fracking gas. Why should those states benefit from fracking.
1
Ok proof again that sometimes the more ivy league degrees you have is directly inverse to how much you live in reality. Karenna you need to return to reality. More liberal do gooding. I bet if your son was killed in Iraq fighting for oil you would feel differently. Fossil fuel is here to stay for 300 hundred years at least.
If you hate fracking, oil and gas development etc. then go back to the 18th century and stop driving your car and heating your home with gas and electric. Where do you think your energy comes from? My lord!.
O I am an oil and gas lawyer so I am biased. But my dad went to Yale and graduated from the divinity school with the father of the president of Union Seminary. My uncle, his brother, had his doctorate from Harvard. My dad (and my uncle's widow) get royalties off a fracked oil and gas well their great grandfather had in North Dakota. My rule above obviously does not apply to all ivy leaguers I guess.
If you hate fracking, oil and gas development etc. then go back to the 18th century and stop driving your car and heating your home with gas and electric. Where do you think your energy comes from? My lord!.
O I am an oil and gas lawyer so I am biased. But my dad went to Yale and graduated from the divinity school with the father of the president of Union Seminary. My uncle, his brother, had his doctorate from Harvard. My dad (and my uncle's widow) get royalties off a fracked oil and gas well their great grandfather had in North Dakota. My rule above obviously does not apply to all ivy leaguers I guess.
1
If we don't get serious about climate change...
serious means keeping fossil fuels in the ground, changing over to sustainable energy
...it doesn't matter who is on the Supreme Court or who is President.
Un sustainable means if we don't change we won't be around.
Real change means the fossil fuel industry must disappear like the buggy whip industry.
serious means keeping fossil fuels in the ground, changing over to sustainable energy
...it doesn't matter who is on the Supreme Court or who is President.
Un sustainable means if we don't change we won't be around.
Real change means the fossil fuel industry must disappear like the buggy whip industry.
2
If only Al Gore hadnt had the election of 2000 stolen from him by the Florida officials who did not record voter registrations from the poor parts of the states handing the victory to the republican supreme court. We would have never gone to Iraq, probably not Afghanistan either because he would have paid attention to the 9/11 warnings. We would have started to work on climate change before and just maybe some of the horribly strong storms we are having now. If only...
3
The natural gas will replace heating oil--which is similar to diesel fuel-- currently used in New York homes and commercial buildings. Heating oil also comes from fracked wells and is delivered via pipeline to refineries and central distribution points. Unlike natural gas, heating oil has to be delivered by trucks and from the distribution centers to homes and buildings, where it has to be stored in basements, garages or outside storage tanks. Natural gas is cheaper and burns cleaner. Pipelines are easily the safest way to transport or natural gas.
2
There is, of course, no form of energy currently available that this writer would ever support. In the words of Groucho Marx, "whatever it is, I'm against it!" Apparently, she supports sitting in the dark with no power. Natural gas produced by fracking isn't perfect -- nothing is. But it's superior to many of the alternatives and it's available NOW.
2
While I /vehemently/ oppose the use of "eminent domain" in just about every circumstance--it's usually just legalised theft--it's time and past for this "fight climate change" silliness to be relegated to the scrap heap of history. It's never been anything other than an abject fraud intended only to justify raising taxes and making governments bigger.
Sounds like they need stronger environmental regulations and force the company to either adhere to them or get out. Looks like the company doing this project is stuck in the 1950's technology and management. Sad.
1
The environmentalists are the new socialists. They want and need to kill capitalism as it is the only true obstacle to achieving their workers utopia pipe dream. They will reduce us to living in holes in the ground and asking permission to make a fire if they have to.
1
The big companies that build these disasters always say they make jobs--but the jobs they count go away in a couple of years when the building is done.
So that's just a big lie.
This "bridge" idea--that we can use the gas temporarily while inventing better solar panels--is misleading at best. The damage done by the construction, and destruction of whatever stands in the way, remains long after the pipe is no longer useful. This would be using up the environment to get a short--term benefit. You can't ever put it back.
Sadly, it is also what Hillary wants to do.
So that's just a big lie.
This "bridge" idea--that we can use the gas temporarily while inventing better solar panels--is misleading at best. The damage done by the construction, and destruction of whatever stands in the way, remains long after the pipe is no longer useful. This would be using up the environment to get a short--term benefit. You can't ever put it back.
Sadly, it is also what Hillary wants to do.
1
I always recoil when the proponents of such insidious programs raise the siren call of 'jobs'; as do the politicians whose coffers are topped off. It is so much it's own methane. All the while the Nation's existing infrastructure crumbles and screams out to those looking for jobs to 'Fix Me!' If we simply went about restoring what we already have there would be no meat left for these carrion to feed off.
Allowing the 'Godot' of job creation to justify the rendering of the land by these fetid and destructive industries is beyond despicable.
Allowing the 'Godot' of job creation to justify the rendering of the land by these fetid and destructive industries is beyond despicable.
1
How many of the commenters here bewailing fracking also drive gasoline powered cars?
What about the cost of our involvement in the Middle East, our involvement that is overwhelmingly due to oil? The money we send to Saudi Arabia to buy their oil is then used to feed Wahabi Islam that paints the West as The Great Satan. Fracking however awful doesn't finance yet more Islamic enemies of the US.
Everything has a cost. Which costs do you want to pay? In domestic pipelines, or in American military lives? Really really truly believe we need to stop using fossil fuels? Buy an electric car and put up solar panels.
What about the cost of our involvement in the Middle East, our involvement that is overwhelmingly due to oil? The money we send to Saudi Arabia to buy their oil is then used to feed Wahabi Islam that paints the West as The Great Satan. Fracking however awful doesn't finance yet more Islamic enemies of the US.
Everything has a cost. Which costs do you want to pay? In domestic pipelines, or in American military lives? Really really truly believe we need to stop using fossil fuels? Buy an electric car and put up solar panels.
1
Sorry ,but if anyone thinks that natural gas is not transitional ,they are in for a surprise. The problem is the emissions need to be fought in other areas such as safe transport of natural gas & storage. Especially in the Northeast where burning of dirtier fuels for heating is a problem environmentally. Also where the Northeast has a problem with embracing renewables because of aesthetics. The gangplank is doing nothing. Efficiency ,whether in automobiles or in energy infrastructure is paramount to battling climate change& is embraced by either side of the political spectrum. What about a 10-20 year fase out of fuel oil? We need a a plan to replace our dirtiest fuels. We need a plan to phase in more affordable renewables as fast as we can. In the meantime,we need a transition we can implement immediately. Let's keep the ball rolling.
1
"Constitution Pipeline"
Ya gotta love it.
Although I really don't remember the section about government of, for, any by the rich and powerful...
Ya gotta love it.
Although I really don't remember the section about government of, for, any by the rich and powerful...
Today, Ms. Gore does not want pipelines. Last March 23, "Fight to Keep Alternative Energy Local Stymies an Industry" was against power lines needed by the wind power industry. With so many objections to energy generation, fossil or renewable, and its transportation, how come we see so few people on bicycles or plain walking? How come so many people travel by jet planes to discuss climate change? How come nobody want to discuss the real problem of never ending population growth?
As the massive methane leak in California demonstrates, gas transport and storage is a danger. Candidly, I don't think the record indicates that the companies involved in fracking or gas transmission or storage are to be trusted. I also think it is hypocritical to ban fracking in NYS and then permit fracked natural gas to be piped through our state. We need more commitment to development of renewable and cleaner energy sources, and as long as traditional energy sources are supported by our governments, there won't be enough pressure to both develop other sources of energy and to change consumption behavior. Lending private companies the state power of eminent domain to appropriate land for a pipeline is a form of government support and subsidy. As the various comments to this piece reflect, there are good points to be made on both sides of a very complex situation, but on balance I think Ms. Gore has made a good case for opposing continued development of pipelines in our state.
1
There are a lot of good arguments here, and I certainly agree that we need to be very careful about the potential of moving to a new fossil fuel that we end up using as a crutch far longer than our atmosphere can handle. However, the criticism about the possible negative effects from building a pipeline corridor can mostly apply to such a corridor built for, say, electric power from a wind farm, a geothermal generation facility, a solar operation, or a regional high speed rail corridor. Unfortunately, to solve our fossil fuel addiction, such corridors will be necessary, and the people who's land will need to be taken by eminent domain will never like it. There is simply no viable alternative in many cases. Using a sad story about one such party will cut both ways when we are trying to implement green infrastructure, and we should bear this in mind before voicing support for a fight like this, knowing that one day we will be on the opposite side of the fence.
1
I looked up the author. She is educated in liberal arts and the law, not science or engineering of any kind. One place this shows up is that she does not seem to understand the vast amount of land needed for wind and solar energy facilities. She also does not seem to know that a typical interstate electricity right-of-way is much wider than a gas pipeline right of way and includes countless huge towers. So, the right-of-way for an electric power line sending solar and wind energy to New England would do much more environmental damage than the natural gas pipeline and the damage would be much more ongoing due to greater maintenance high voltage power lines need.
2
Why does this writer want more gas spills? The gas is going to move to market by truck and rail if the pipeline isn't built. Truck and rail spills gas and oil at 40 TIMES the rate of pipelines.
Fracked natural gas is a plus for the environment, and has lowered our CO2 emissions for the last 9 years for the first time since we started measuring emissions. That's due to using more natural gas and less coal and fuel oil. To improve air quality, always move toward the cleaner fuel and away from the dirtiest. The only energy source cleaner than nat gas is nuclear. Solar and Wind are dirtier and more dangerous to wildlife, as well as being inefficient and much more costly in BTUs produced per unit. That's why Warren Buffet says the only reason he builds wind farms is to get the govt subsidy. If not for your tax dollars going to Buffet, he says wind would make no sense. That's no way to run an energy policy.
Fracked natural gas is a plus for the environment, and has lowered our CO2 emissions for the last 9 years for the first time since we started measuring emissions. That's due to using more natural gas and less coal and fuel oil. To improve air quality, always move toward the cleaner fuel and away from the dirtiest. The only energy source cleaner than nat gas is nuclear. Solar and Wind are dirtier and more dangerous to wildlife, as well as being inefficient and much more costly in BTUs produced per unit. That's why Warren Buffet says the only reason he builds wind farms is to get the govt subsidy. If not for your tax dollars going to Buffet, he says wind would make no sense. That's no way to run an energy policy.
2
The efforts made by environmentalists to control supply of fossil fuels is a doomed mission. So long as demand exists, the supply will be met somehow. Smart environmentalism will dedicate its efforts to curbing demand and to shifting the mix of supply by promoting other sources rather than seeking to ban coal or gas.
How to curb demand:
1. Population control. Advanced societies (in which we all want to live) consume energy at a high per-capita rate. Total emissions are simply (Per-capita consumption) X (population); reducing either factor by 1% reduces the total emissions. Western nations can contribute to worldwide population control by simply halting net immigration.
2. Fuel efficiency. Regulating this directly is a whack-a-mole problem. Carbon tax is the obvious solution which will curb demand through price signals.
3. Lifestyle. OK, this is difficult to change. But why do people drive half a mile to the gym? Why does nobody walk their kids to school anymore? I've seen people drive around the block to a friend's house.
4. Public transit. Too obvious to describe.
How to curb demand:
1. Population control. Advanced societies (in which we all want to live) consume energy at a high per-capita rate. Total emissions are simply (Per-capita consumption) X (population); reducing either factor by 1% reduces the total emissions. Western nations can contribute to worldwide population control by simply halting net immigration.
2. Fuel efficiency. Regulating this directly is a whack-a-mole problem. Carbon tax is the obvious solution which will curb demand through price signals.
3. Lifestyle. OK, this is difficult to change. But why do people drive half a mile to the gym? Why does nobody walk their kids to school anymore? I've seen people drive around the block to a friend's house.
4. Public transit. Too obvious to describe.
2
How many people are willing to turn off their heaters or air conditioning systems and wait until renewables meet their needs? How many are willing to park their cars and walk? How many, given the A/B choice, would say, "Okay, let's burn more coal for the next 20 to 30 yrs."?
The battle against Keystone XL opened a new front of the environmental movement. The idea now is to force the transition to renewables by shutting down pipeline development or, for that matter, any form of new fossil fuel sources. The equation is simple and dumb: fossils fuels are the enemy, therefore they must be stopped all means available. Using the argument that their true costs have not been considered is not without merit, but we have to remember that propagandists for either side will shape the numbers to suit their goals.
I, for one, am not falling for these simplistic arguments. Fracking is bad, therefore a pipeline is horrible? No.
We must make an eager, full press charge away from fossil and toward renewable, clean, or cleaner, energy, but this is not guerrilla warfare. At present, we are dependent on the energy from fossil fuels. We have 250,000 miles of pipelines buried across America and they don't seem to be causing a lot of problems or controversy. (Land owners themselves almost never welcome the intrusion.) Turning every new pipeline into a vision of an apocalypse is a way to appeal to the uninformed, but it is not a constructive way to bring about necessary changes.
Doug Terry
The battle against Keystone XL opened a new front of the environmental movement. The idea now is to force the transition to renewables by shutting down pipeline development or, for that matter, any form of new fossil fuel sources. The equation is simple and dumb: fossils fuels are the enemy, therefore they must be stopped all means available. Using the argument that their true costs have not been considered is not without merit, but we have to remember that propagandists for either side will shape the numbers to suit their goals.
I, for one, am not falling for these simplistic arguments. Fracking is bad, therefore a pipeline is horrible? No.
We must make an eager, full press charge away from fossil and toward renewable, clean, or cleaner, energy, but this is not guerrilla warfare. At present, we are dependent on the energy from fossil fuels. We have 250,000 miles of pipelines buried across America and they don't seem to be causing a lot of problems or controversy. (Land owners themselves almost never welcome the intrusion.) Turning every new pipeline into a vision of an apocalypse is a way to appeal to the uninformed, but it is not a constructive way to bring about necessary changes.
Doug Terry
2
The PA DEP did nothing to stop the tree cutting on the Holleran property even though the work began just months after the Secretary of the DEP led a pipeline infrastructure task force whose aim was to "build public acceptance" of the industry, not protect Pennsylvanians and our natural resources from it. Cindy Ivey had a seat on that task force representing Williams, the company that would cut down the Holleran family's trees. In fact, she led the subcommittee on Public Participation.
By the end of that month, tree cutters were on the scene of another unapproved pipeline in SWPA, a hazardous liquid gas pipeline proposed by Sunoco, another task force member. The Gerhart family had a different relationship to the trees as forest stewards since the 1980s. Once again, the DEP stood idly by.
A representative of the DEP was a panelist at a Dem House hearing called "Should PA Incentivize Natural Gas?" about a week before the Gerhart's trees were felled. The other panelist was from the state's economic development agency. It was hard to tell them apart. The DEP rep testified that his job is to incentivize natural gas in various ways.
Many of us contacted the DEP when the tree cuttings were occurring. We were told that the PA DEP has no authority to protect trees.
New Yorkers don't appreciate how lucky they are to have leaders who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Take advantage of that. Call Cuomo until he says NO to the Constitution pipeline.
By the end of that month, tree cutters were on the scene of another unapproved pipeline in SWPA, a hazardous liquid gas pipeline proposed by Sunoco, another task force member. The Gerhart family had a different relationship to the trees as forest stewards since the 1980s. Once again, the DEP stood idly by.
A representative of the DEP was a panelist at a Dem House hearing called "Should PA Incentivize Natural Gas?" about a week before the Gerhart's trees were felled. The other panelist was from the state's economic development agency. It was hard to tell them apart. The DEP rep testified that his job is to incentivize natural gas in various ways.
Many of us contacted the DEP when the tree cuttings were occurring. We were told that the PA DEP has no authority to protect trees.
New Yorkers don't appreciate how lucky they are to have leaders who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Take advantage of that. Call Cuomo until he says NO to the Constitution pipeline.
2
Do New York residents really have a way to say "No"?
Here in Florida, we've recently discovered that there's no end to the ways fossile fuel interests can find to slip over, around and under the public interest. All it takes is the full cooperation of the eternally Republican-dominated Legislature, with the full support of Governor Rick "Crash Test Dummy" Scott (although he's being suitably coy about it).
A petition was recently circulated here to block fracking in Florida's extremely vulnerable substructure. It had more than enough signatures to require consideration, but the Legislature beat it to the punch by passing a bill that disallows local municipalities the authority to object in any way. Local autonomy of that kind has been part of Florida's top-heavy Constitution for decades.
There's no stopping the fossil fuel industry. It will get what it wants, by hook or by crook.
Here in Florida, we've recently discovered that there's no end to the ways fossile fuel interests can find to slip over, around and under the public interest. All it takes is the full cooperation of the eternally Republican-dominated Legislature, with the full support of Governor Rick "Crash Test Dummy" Scott (although he's being suitably coy about it).
A petition was recently circulated here to block fracking in Florida's extremely vulnerable substructure. It had more than enough signatures to require consideration, but the Legislature beat it to the punch by passing a bill that disallows local municipalities the authority to object in any way. Local autonomy of that kind has been part of Florida's top-heavy Constitution for decades.
There's no stopping the fossil fuel industry. It will get what it wants, by hook or by crook.
Having some awareness of what is going on at the other end (the gas fields themselves) I can understand the concern over the apparent heavy handedness of pipeline operators to get from points "A" to "B" in as straight a line as possible and paying as little as possible for the right of way to do it.
Having a free hand to do as they please isn't good. Going through "unspoiled" and "pristine" area's is a touchy subject and understandable so. On the other hand the operators are looking for the most isolated path that line can take. In the course of driving that line several hundred miles they are encounter both man made and natural obstacles that will have to be addressed in some manner that will be objectionable to someone..
If I have to make a choice between burning coal and burning gas - I'll go with gas. we have a long way's to go before we're ready to idle the coal trains and shut in the gas. Probably until everyone can heat their homes and cook meals off a solar array.
And then there is the fact that LNG powered tractor trailers, locomotive engines, buses, and delivery vans are less polluting that diesel powered engines. And the power plants to generate electricity for all of us to recharge our electric cars - natural gas does it cleaner.
There are trade offs to all of this. We have to be willing to look at the entire picture before we decide what we are willing to sacrifice to get to where we need to be.
Having a free hand to do as they please isn't good. Going through "unspoiled" and "pristine" area's is a touchy subject and understandable so. On the other hand the operators are looking for the most isolated path that line can take. In the course of driving that line several hundred miles they are encounter both man made and natural obstacles that will have to be addressed in some manner that will be objectionable to someone..
If I have to make a choice between burning coal and burning gas - I'll go with gas. we have a long way's to go before we're ready to idle the coal trains and shut in the gas. Probably until everyone can heat their homes and cook meals off a solar array.
And then there is the fact that LNG powered tractor trailers, locomotive engines, buses, and delivery vans are less polluting that diesel powered engines. And the power plants to generate electricity for all of us to recharge our electric cars - natural gas does it cleaner.
There are trade offs to all of this. We have to be willing to look at the entire picture before we decide what we are willing to sacrifice to get to where we need to be.
1
This article is the kind of information that needs to be shared and shared widely. Its widely known that fracked gas has horrible health issues for humans, animals and plants. Its contribution to climate change is seriously not understood. I"m fed up with the suppression of information that continues to promote all aspects of hydraulic fracking for gas. Many pipelines are old and energy companies don't deal with it unless it is explosion level. Methane is strong enough to hold heat in the atmosphere for 86 times stronger than CO2 on the 20 year time frame.
We have to deal with all greenhouse gases, but methane is the one that could be dealt with most quickly - because "unnatural" gas, the component of such gas is 90-99% methane, and methane degrades from CO4 in 8 to 12 years to CO2.
We have to deal with all greenhouse gases, but methane is the one that could be dealt with most quickly - because "unnatural" gas, the component of such gas is 90-99% methane, and methane degrades from CO4 in 8 to 12 years to CO2.
1
Great Comedy, Federal Marshals paving the way for the New York Chainsaw massacre, omitting the small detail that the Holleran family had, as a result of eminent domain, been compensated for the temporary and permanent effects of the pipeline easement. My experience as a lawyer is that the awards are quite generous. Even better was the concern to stop fracking caused earthquakes, even the Pennsylvania citizens acting through their elected representatives approved fracking. Ms. Gore of New York out of the goodness of her heart hopes to save the Pennsylvanians from their folly.
Unfortunately, similar arguments get advanced for virtually every project no matter its benefits. Remember the offshore wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod. The wealthy environmentally conscious residents of Martha’s Vineyard turned out in opposition, alleging everything from interference with military radars (not raised by the military) to Native American religious beliefs. Likewise, the Grain Belt Express a high voltage direct current electrical transmission line Kansas wind farms to St. Louis has faced such serious objections as it might be used to transmit electricity from coal fired plants. This despite its ameliorating two disadvantages of wind power -- distance from major population centers and its intermittency.
Unfortunately, similar arguments get advanced for virtually every project no matter its benefits. Remember the offshore wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod. The wealthy environmentally conscious residents of Martha’s Vineyard turned out in opposition, alleging everything from interference with military radars (not raised by the military) to Native American religious beliefs. Likewise, the Grain Belt Express a high voltage direct current electrical transmission line Kansas wind farms to St. Louis has faced such serious objections as it might be used to transmit electricity from coal fired plants. This despite its ameliorating two disadvantages of wind power -- distance from major population centers and its intermittency.
1
It is clear that the pipeline must be stopped despite all the investment and effort that has already taken place. NY State must and can protect itself from the devastating consequences of this massive project. It was disappointing to hear Hillary's support for natural gas but this should not make one support Sanders.
His appeal amongst the young may well be offset by a loss of interest among blacks and hispanics. Trump will have a more persuasive argument amongst undereducated, underemployed and disaffected whites as his arguments are easier to understand and agree with, irrespective of how totally ruinous they would be. Hillary can win, Bernie will be attacked and made to look too old and quixotic. The GOP attack apparatus will make him a communist to people who don't think deeper than mendacious ad and bumper sticker slogans. Sanders's views on fracking will be irrelevant if he loses the election. Hillary will be far more supportive of the environment and will almost certainly institute tougher regulations dealing with methane loss and gas transportation. She will have the Supreme Court to back her policies which Sanders will not as a senator from Vermont.
His appeal amongst the young may well be offset by a loss of interest among blacks and hispanics. Trump will have a more persuasive argument amongst undereducated, underemployed and disaffected whites as his arguments are easier to understand and agree with, irrespective of how totally ruinous they would be. Hillary can win, Bernie will be attacked and made to look too old and quixotic. The GOP attack apparatus will make him a communist to people who don't think deeper than mendacious ad and bumper sticker slogans. Sanders's views on fracking will be irrelevant if he loses the election. Hillary will be far more supportive of the environment and will almost certainly institute tougher regulations dealing with methane loss and gas transportation. She will have the Supreme Court to back her policies which Sanders will not as a senator from Vermont.
1
I applauded President Obama for busting the Key Stone XL pipeline deal and stating the obvious : the pipeline threatened the water for millions of people. However, we know that had it been a Republican president, this pipeline would have been in operation for a couple of years now. I pray President Obama's successor is pro-environment first. It is time to stop fracking and drilling for more oil and start investing more massively in clean energy research and development. Pennsylvanians who sold out their land to fracking brought in huge problems for the residents : tinted water, noise 24/7, destruction of habitats and forests, stinky air, and road damages caused by heavy trucks, to name a few. The US could be a leader and an example for the world in the transition to clean energy and the protection of the environment.
1
I am sorry, but this is all really small potatoes when we are looking at the extreme danger of Climate change. Much more important is the reduction of energy use as we move, haltingly, towards renewable energy sources.
We should concentrate on some real long term moves to lower our pollution of the planet. For example, it is more important to have a major growth of urbanization, with the concomitant lowering of per-capita resource use (including energy) than to stop a pipeline, particularly if it contributes to that urban growth.
Most Americans don't understand that automobile use is still one of the major obstacles to climate control. Rather than winning that battle, on the world stage, we are losing it. Every time I read that world-wide auto production is up (accompanied by media cheering) I get depressed for my grandchildren. We live in the middle of a major metropolitan area and gave away our last car in the mid 1970's.
Also, a "crowded" urban environment means greater efficiency and much less wastage of all resources, from copper cable, to water lines, to garbage disposal.
The point is, if that fracked gas helps to move urbanization along, then the pipeline is environmentally the right thing to do.
We should concentrate on some real long term moves to lower our pollution of the planet. For example, it is more important to have a major growth of urbanization, with the concomitant lowering of per-capita resource use (including energy) than to stop a pipeline, particularly if it contributes to that urban growth.
Most Americans don't understand that automobile use is still one of the major obstacles to climate control. Rather than winning that battle, on the world stage, we are losing it. Every time I read that world-wide auto production is up (accompanied by media cheering) I get depressed for my grandchildren. We live in the middle of a major metropolitan area and gave away our last car in the mid 1970's.
Also, a "crowded" urban environment means greater efficiency and much less wastage of all resources, from copper cable, to water lines, to garbage disposal.
The point is, if that fracked gas helps to move urbanization along, then the pipeline is environmentally the right thing to do.
2
This is not a serious piece. The internationally-accepted GWP for methane is 25 not 84, calculated over a 100, not 20-year period. The top down approach used in the Harvard study is not an accepted approach. Also, "fracked" gas is a nonsensical distinction, not made as all gas moves through pipelines.
This piece’s intellectual dishonesty is also evident in its lack of distinction between methane leaks vs. combustion. In 2014, methane emissions from gas systems, when normalized for GWP, was 157 MMT vs CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel combustion of 5209 MMT. Methane leaks from gas systems are relatively easy to manage and EPA is working on finalizing gas system regulations. If these leaks are effectively eliminated, methane becomes a non-issue.
What will remain however, is large volumes of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. Natural gas emits less than half the CO2 of coal. As gas generation has replaced coal, CO2 emissions from the US power sector have dramatically declined.
Wind and solar are currently around 5% of total US power generation--we are decades away from powering our economy with renewables. In the interim, natural gas truly is a bridge fuel.
We need to work at solving these serious issues in an intellectually-honest way. Ideology should not replace analysis of the costs, availability, rates of technology diffusion and infrastructure replacement as we work to address the existential threat of climate change.
This piece’s intellectual dishonesty is also evident in its lack of distinction between methane leaks vs. combustion. In 2014, methane emissions from gas systems, when normalized for GWP, was 157 MMT vs CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel combustion of 5209 MMT. Methane leaks from gas systems are relatively easy to manage and EPA is working on finalizing gas system regulations. If these leaks are effectively eliminated, methane becomes a non-issue.
What will remain however, is large volumes of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. Natural gas emits less than half the CO2 of coal. As gas generation has replaced coal, CO2 emissions from the US power sector have dramatically declined.
Wind and solar are currently around 5% of total US power generation--we are decades away from powering our economy with renewables. In the interim, natural gas truly is a bridge fuel.
We need to work at solving these serious issues in an intellectually-honest way. Ideology should not replace analysis of the costs, availability, rates of technology diffusion and infrastructure replacement as we work to address the existential threat of climate change.
1
If only Ms. Gore could live in a country that totally lacks the benefits of fossil fuels she cavalierly disparages. With Less electricity, there goes her computer and lighting that she uses for her Earth Ethics rants. Not to mention the heat in the winter, nor the air-conditioning she probably enjoys due to her relative wealth. (Especially compared to her father whose huge mansion uses enough electricity to alter climate change all by itself.) And this doesn't even cover the transportation system that provides her food and stylish clothing she exhibits on her Earth Center Ethics website and on Wikipedia.
These Neo-Luddites live in their own tiny world of utopian ideas about the environment and how modern civilization is destroying the planet. Most are harmless cranks, but some like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, try to enforce their opinion with violence.
Meanwhile, the rest of us poor slubs have to live a life far removed from her aerie among the rich and famous. We struggle to get by, provide for our families, and appreciate that we don't have to live in some fantasy world envisioned by Ms. Gore.
These Neo-Luddites live in their own tiny world of utopian ideas about the environment and how modern civilization is destroying the planet. Most are harmless cranks, but some like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, try to enforce their opinion with violence.
Meanwhile, the rest of us poor slubs have to live a life far removed from her aerie among the rich and famous. We struggle to get by, provide for our families, and appreciate that we don't have to live in some fantasy world envisioned by Ms. Gore.
3
Other writers have pointed out numerous fracking pros and cons. Injecting toxic water below ground is complete madness and self-poisoning. To produce the same quantity of energy, far more acreage that would have to be clearcut for solar panels than would have to be cut for a gas pipeline. Even small methane leaks are a serious problem re both greenhouse gas and public health. Nationally, the best locations for producing wind or solar are far away from the places that need that power, our current electric grid is inadequate for transmitting from the former to the latter, and upgrading it will take years and billions. Heavy capital investment in more natural gas capacity would have to be recouped over many decades, making a mockery of the idea of a "bridge" fuel. The public is justifiably suspicious that some pipelines, ostensibly proposed to bring natural gas to a gas-short region, will instead be used to export it to other countries. Wind and solar are sporadic sources, not baseload, and current require baseload plants to back them up. Battery storage capacity for such power is currently not economical, and progress on improving it is slow.
We need to debate, then accept, major social changes; which will we make? A carbon tax? More rail transit and fewer tractor trailers? Smaller homes? Less auto commuting and more public transit? Bringing production back from abroad to the US to cut transit distances? More local (and more expensive) agriculture?
We need to debate, then accept, major social changes; which will we make? A carbon tax? More rail transit and fewer tractor trailers? Smaller homes? Less auto commuting and more public transit? Bringing production back from abroad to the US to cut transit distances? More local (and more expensive) agriculture?
"Building this pipeline would undermine our commitment to fight climate change."......There may or may not be good environmental reasons on where or how a gas pipeline should be located, but the climate change argument is false. It is essential to remove coal fired electricity generating facilities as rapidly as possible as the result is a very significant reduction in CO2 emissions as well as other contamination such as mercury. This simply cannot be done without a significant transit to natural gas. Issues regarding fracking and methane leakage are separate issues and unrelated to the pipeline and when and where they exist they need to be dealt with separately,
11
Ms. Gore must count every gully as a trout stream to reach the number she cites. Furthermore the Hallorans are entitled to compensation for their loss... how many maple syrup extractors does she suppose will be affected by the pipeline? Finally, how many generations of New Englanders will lose out to high heating bills while natural gas is sold elsewhere? Some of them have been raising and educating children for (wait for it) generations!
15
For the number of waterways crossed (289), see the federal agency FERC's Final Environmental Impact Statement, October 2104, p.4 of the Executive Summary (p. ES-4, but it's p. 25 of the PDFs). It says,
"The pipeline project would cross a total of 289 surface waterbodies, one of which is considered a major waterbody (greater than 100 feet wide)."
Not only are many of these streams classified as "Trout Streams" by the NY DEC, but many of them are further classified as Trout Spawing Streams. They receive a very high degree of protection from NY State authorities because trout can only survive in clear cold waters with high levels of dissolved oxygen.
Link to the big pdf document from FERC that notes all of the 289 waterways crossed:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/downloadOpen.asp?downloadfile=2014...
The Holleran's received less than $3000. Nowhere near the price of having this family's business wiped out. Their Maple trees will take many decades to regrow.
"The pipeline project would cross a total of 289 surface waterbodies, one of which is considered a major waterbody (greater than 100 feet wide)."
Not only are many of these streams classified as "Trout Streams" by the NY DEC, but many of them are further classified as Trout Spawing Streams. They receive a very high degree of protection from NY State authorities because trout can only survive in clear cold waters with high levels of dissolved oxygen.
Link to the big pdf document from FERC that notes all of the 289 waterways crossed:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/downloadOpen.asp?downloadfile=2014...
The Holleran's received less than $3000. Nowhere near the price of having this family's business wiped out. Their Maple trees will take many decades to regrow.
2
Another point that is not well enough understood is that high heating bills in New England are not the result of a lack of frack-gas pipelines servicing that region. A recent study by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General found that pipeline capacity is adequate aside from (at most, depending on the year in question) less than 12 days per year when gas demand is at it's peak. There is no need for additional gas in New England.
The fracked-gas that would be transported by "Constitution" pipeline is designed for export to Canada via the existing Iroquois Pipeline and the Maritimes NE Pipeline. Once the gas is in Canada it would be exported via LNG facilities to whomever will pay the highest price on the world market. Additional gas leaving the US will raise (not lower) prices in New England and the entire US.
The fracked-gas that would be transported by "Constitution" pipeline is designed for export to Canada via the existing Iroquois Pipeline and the Maritimes NE Pipeline. Once the gas is in Canada it would be exported via LNG facilities to whomever will pay the highest price on the world market. Additional gas leaving the US will raise (not lower) prices in New England and the entire US.
2
It would be tragic to overlook our country's desperate need for infrastructure upgrade and repair including gas for energy, transportation and heating as we interim transition to cleaner sources and free us from dealing with despotic and often barbaric regimes.
The author appears to be employed by as ethicist at a religious academy. Makes one immediately suspicious of objectivity or goals. Then the hyperbole of government backed workers with chainsaws invading helpless citizen farmers by unscrupulous utility companies by eminent domain. (compensation is not mentioned?) Simply look at any current engineering or energy project and you will have the same menu of issues including a legislated fair public permitting process.
The author appears to be employed by as ethicist at a religious academy. Makes one immediately suspicious of objectivity or goals. Then the hyperbole of government backed workers with chainsaws invading helpless citizen farmers by unscrupulous utility companies by eminent domain. (compensation is not mentioned?) Simply look at any current engineering or energy project and you will have the same menu of issues including a legislated fair public permitting process.
11
There is big elephant in the room. It is called nuclear power. It is not "renewable", but there is enough uranium to last for at least seventy thousand years. No CO2 emission.
Does anybody know what will be in seventy thousand years?
Duh?
Does anybody know what will be in seventy thousand years?
Duh?
17
Considering Fukushima, the Germans are planning on taking their nuclear power plants out of service, and Three Mile Island still casts a shadow on the East Coast no one is eager to visit that idea at the moment here in the U.S.
I have a recommendation....
Anyone writing an anti fossil fuel article, making unsubstantiated claims about the inevitability of climate change etc... must reveal detailed information about their life style.
Do they ride in non electric cars? How many miles a year. How large is their home (or homes). How is it powered? If they live in a house, do they insist that whoever does their yard work use no power tools -- a push mower to mow the lawn for instance. The things they consumed, are they all produced by 19th century craft persons who carry the product directly to them, or do they buy things that are produced all over the world in fossil fuel powered factories and then shipped to them by planes, trains, trucks, ships, etc. Powered of course, by fossil fuels.
Do they wear clothes made at home or -- do they buy from producers all over the world in -- you guessed -- shops powered by fossil fuels...
Well, I could go on, but I think you should get the picture.
Anyone writing an anti fossil fuel article, making unsubstantiated claims about the inevitability of climate change etc... must reveal detailed information about their life style.
Do they ride in non electric cars? How many miles a year. How large is their home (or homes). How is it powered? If they live in a house, do they insist that whoever does their yard work use no power tools -- a push mower to mow the lawn for instance. The things they consumed, are they all produced by 19th century craft persons who carry the product directly to them, or do they buy things that are produced all over the world in fossil fuel powered factories and then shipped to them by planes, trains, trucks, ships, etc. Powered of course, by fossil fuels.
Do they wear clothes made at home or -- do they buy from producers all over the world in -- you guessed -- shops powered by fossil fuels...
Well, I could go on, but I think you should get the picture.
21
What would that prove? Would that show us the path to wise public policy? If your research found that the author did drive an electric car and had a small environmental footprint, would you then agree with her policy proposals?
I am a huge proponent of solar energy. I live in an apartment in the city, switched myself to renewable electricity, don't own a car, avoid plastic bags and bottles, eat low on the food chain, and overall have a relatively small environmental footprint. If I ever buy a car it will be electric and small. Does my support for solar energy now carry more weight for you?
I am a huge proponent of solar energy. I live in an apartment in the city, switched myself to renewable electricity, don't own a car, avoid plastic bags and bottles, eat low on the food chain, and overall have a relatively small environmental footprint. If I ever buy a car it will be electric and small. Does my support for solar energy now carry more weight for you?
What would that prove? Would that show us the path to wise public policy? If your research found that the author did drive an electric car and had a small environmental footprint, would you then agree with her policy proposals?
I am a huge proponent of solar energy. I live in an apartment in the city, switched myself to renewable electricity, don't own a car, avoid plastic bags and bottles, eat low on the food chain, and overall have a relatively small environmental footprint. If I ever buy a car it will be electric and small. Does my support for solar energy now carry more weight for you?
I am a huge proponent of solar energy. I live in an apartment in the city, switched myself to renewable electricity, don't own a car, avoid plastic bags and bottles, eat low on the food chain, and overall have a relatively small environmental footprint. If I ever buy a car it will be electric and small. Does my support for solar energy now carry more weight for you?
Pipelines suffer this sort of attack because they are intensely symbolic. They carry the evil juice. In fact, building one does about the same environmental damage as constructing a county road, and their safety record is excellent.
Eminent domain is a wonderful thing when we’re preserving wetlands, but it’s not when they’re cutting down maple trees. Ms. Gore would like to be in charge of deciding which public need is valid; she would prohibit Big Oil from mowing three acres of maple trees. Don't tell her where lumber comes from.
Come on, folks, what’s this all about? It can’t be about pipelines or maple trees. It’s about the pain of moving away from carbon-based energy.
We cannot develop new energy sources by obstructing old energy sources. Artificially forcing the price of energy higher is a lousy—and ineffective—way to improve our lives. We are not yet ready to shift to renewable energy, and that’s a fact. In the interim, we need to keep energy affordable for the multi-millions of Americans who struggle, and we need to work cooperatively to get the carbon monkey off our back.
This is a remarkable time. Peabody Coal, the world’s largest private-sector coal producer, filed for bankruptcy last week. And SunEdison, the world’s largest global renewable energy company, will file for bankruptcy next week. We got trouble.
Eminent domain is a wonderful thing when we’re preserving wetlands, but it’s not when they’re cutting down maple trees. Ms. Gore would like to be in charge of deciding which public need is valid; she would prohibit Big Oil from mowing three acres of maple trees. Don't tell her where lumber comes from.
Come on, folks, what’s this all about? It can’t be about pipelines or maple trees. It’s about the pain of moving away from carbon-based energy.
We cannot develop new energy sources by obstructing old energy sources. Artificially forcing the price of energy higher is a lousy—and ineffective—way to improve our lives. We are not yet ready to shift to renewable energy, and that’s a fact. In the interim, we need to keep energy affordable for the multi-millions of Americans who struggle, and we need to work cooperatively to get the carbon monkey off our back.
This is a remarkable time. Peabody Coal, the world’s largest private-sector coal producer, filed for bankruptcy last week. And SunEdison, the world’s largest global renewable energy company, will file for bankruptcy next week. We got trouble.
13
So we TRUST science when we approve of the conclusions - Climate change is caused by humans (I agree).
But we DO NOT TRUST science when we disagree with the conclusions - EPA 700 page report (6/2015) saying that: "We did not find any evidence that hydraulic fracking has led to systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_j...
But we DO NOT TRUST science when we disagree with the conclusions - EPA 700 page report (6/2015) saying that: "We did not find any evidence that hydraulic fracking has led to systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_j...
14
If you would not allow this pipeline, then let those consumers affected use the same trees affected as a "renewable" energy source. Let them cut the trees saved by not having the pipeline and burn them as fuel for energy. The trees could be replanted and they could be used over and over and over again. Oh, but I forgot, what about the carbon used with tree burning..., and oh, the smoke, the particulates, the asthma... Perhaps this is not as good a solution as simply building the pipeline and using the gas.
4
I agree. And in Virginia, Dominion Resources is trying, lobbying to build a spur disguised as a pipeline. The spur goes to Newport News so Dominion can export liquified natural gas at ten times the price of its production. The pipeline would go from West Virginia through pristine mountains and land in the Alleghenies to the South. Their latest route would go through karst with caves, and risks the water supply for the region. Natural gas is carbon, and is not the answer to climate change. Some of the biggest donors to Pacs have made millions fracking. Mrs. Clinton is on their take.
9
Gee, its so nice for the writer to care for the benighted West Virginians who are watching their major industry coal die (deservedly). He wants to deny them the jobs and the tax revenues as well as cheap fuel that they could use for new industries. But, not to worry, God will reward them.
This is a joke right? This paper endorses Hillary, therefore you support fracking and the piping that goes with it. The concept of including externalized costs (full accounting) are not part of Hillary's policies towards any aspect addressing what is referred to as the Environment by her corporate masters.
7
I would have more sympathy for Ms. Gore's argument If the people opposing the pipeline weren't some of the same people who fought tooth and nail against placing 12 wind turbines on our farm. (This does not include Ms. Gore's group.) They claimed it was "visual pollution", posed a danger to birds and was harmful to humans. They succeeded and the project was stopped. Now Constitution has negotiated with us for some 9,000 feet of right of way. Perhaps the pipeline would not have been needed if the wind farm had been built. People need energy and it is not practical to oppose every energy project.
Steve Huse
Steve Huse
14
Yes, vested interests have been exploiting environmental concerns and creating delays in the court for projects that will benefit us all.
The wholesale ignorance nationwide about the tradeoffs involved has led to misplaced understanding.
Certainly, global warming - and existing fossil sites, which are visibly toxic - hurt many more species than any individual solution.
"Environmentalists" is a broad term and includes many people with limited understanding. We have met the enemy and he is us. However, the exploitation is hidden and the wrong people are blamed.
The wholesale ignorance nationwide about the tradeoffs involved has led to misplaced understanding.
Certainly, global warming - and existing fossil sites, which are visibly toxic - hurt many more species than any individual solution.
"Environmentalists" is a broad term and includes many people with limited understanding. We have met the enemy and he is us. However, the exploitation is hidden and the wrong people are blamed.
2
I feel badly for the impact to people's lives but we are sticking it to OPEC right now in a way they never expected and that should continue.
4
So good to see the Times print this. The heartbreaking event at the Hollerans was a travesty of American values. Our Government is using their power to serve big corporations while regular Americans are getting run over. Anyone who can should watch the scenes from the tree cutting, watch your fellow Americans loose everything so a corporation can make profits.
Fracked gas CAN be replaced by renewable energy. The nature we are destroying can't be replaced. In fact, there is a pipeline planned through Walden Pond!
Fracked gas CAN be replaced by renewable energy. The nature we are destroying can't be replaced. In fact, there is a pipeline planned through Walden Pond!
9
With respect to Solar Panels, much of what consumers know is subtly limited, generally by fossil fuel interests, and our complicit government, in a futile effort to slow the change to environmentally friendly fuel alternatives.
Before I placed 10kW (10,000 watts) of solar panels on my roof, my electric bill averaged $300 per month, $3,600.00 annually.
Here in Long Island our electric utility gave an allowance of $2.50 per watt to homeowners to incentivize solar panel installation, plus there were state and Federal tax advantages, making what me me was an expensive proposition, into one that became affordable.
I elected to do net-metering instead of battery storage.
My electric bill now is $11.69 per month average, which is the cost to maintain the grid-tie to my home. When there is little sunlight I do use more electricity from the grid, but not a lot.
The point of this story is too alert people that solar power is eminently doable, getting cheaper, and as better battery storage become available, such as the Tesla Battery for home use, now available, homes anywhere on the planet can benefit.
Real representative Government is the key, which we currently do not have, as ours is bought and paid for by Big Oil and other powerful interests, so it will be sometime before we get control of the problem.
With Bernie Sanders as our 45th., President, we will begin to flex the power "we the still stupid people" are beginning to discover we have.
Before I placed 10kW (10,000 watts) of solar panels on my roof, my electric bill averaged $300 per month, $3,600.00 annually.
Here in Long Island our electric utility gave an allowance of $2.50 per watt to homeowners to incentivize solar panel installation, plus there were state and Federal tax advantages, making what me me was an expensive proposition, into one that became affordable.
I elected to do net-metering instead of battery storage.
My electric bill now is $11.69 per month average, which is the cost to maintain the grid-tie to my home. When there is little sunlight I do use more electricity from the grid, but not a lot.
The point of this story is too alert people that solar power is eminently doable, getting cheaper, and as better battery storage become available, such as the Tesla Battery for home use, now available, homes anywhere on the planet can benefit.
Real representative Government is the key, which we currently do not have, as ours is bought and paid for by Big Oil and other powerful interests, so it will be sometime before we get control of the problem.
With Bernie Sanders as our 45th., President, we will begin to flex the power "we the still stupid people" are beginning to discover we have.
14
But Hillary says fracking is good. And fossil fuel companies contributing millions to her campaign and her foundation are marvelous and wonderful.
8
Just where do you green energy folks think you are going to get electricity? I'm sure you are aware that the sun is only out during the daytime. Are you aware that even in very sunny places like California, the peak solar output time of day is around noon and that solar is essentially gone by 5 PM. How about wind? Incredibly flaky. In California, it blows early in the morning and in the late afternoon -- sometimes. Do you have any other sources of power? NO.
Natural gas is the only comparatively clean, reliable, way to generate electricity. It is, in fact, the natural gas fired electrical generating capacity in all the regions of the country that makes it even possible to add on solar and wind. It's like having your reliable Camry sitting in your garage all the time, which allows you to use your Chevy Volt once in awhile when it's fully charged up.
Natural gas is the only comparatively clean, reliable, way to generate electricity. It is, in fact, the natural gas fired electrical generating capacity in all the regions of the country that makes it even possible to add on solar and wind. It's like having your reliable Camry sitting in your garage all the time, which allows you to use your Chevy Volt once in awhile when it's fully charged up.
11
Please detail your short-term alternatives to fossil fuels for New England's immediate energy needs and then your arguments may have some credibility. But these "pie in the sky" arguments are as the dreams we have in our slumber that dissipate like mist in the cold morning light.
15
I have no problem requiring these pipelines to be built with good to great safety and to impact the environment as little as possible. Replanting some trees is an option as well. Now the foolish carbon idea is fine as well as long as you do without. No nuclear, no gas, no coal, means little to no base generations. Do without it and I respect you, whine and I don't.
7
I firmly believe that if states had been able to mandate that all such pipelines be routed through every gated community and country club along the way, none of them would have been built.
14
It is shocking that Hillary Clinton continues to tout natural gas as a clean alternative to coal. Only a fossil fuel apologist would stubbornly hang on to that canard.
Ask those of us in Colorado what it's like to be surrounded by fly-by-night frackers who tear up our land, water resources and air.
Ask those of us in Colorado what it's like to be surrounded by fly-by-night frackers who tear up our land, water resources and air.
9
laughable that anyone supports this likely multiple disaster.
3
One has to wonder if Ms. Gore realizes how much land it would take to replace the energy in natural gas with solar energy. At best in the desert southwest the sun produces on the order of 1kW/m^2, solar conversion efficiency reduce that to at best around 200W/m^2 a value further reduced because spacing of solar panels require access. Trying to install solar in NY would decrease that value to probably somewhere around 100W/m^2. Talk about cutting down trees, one would have to cut hundreds of square miles of trees to install enough solar in NY to supply required energy needs. And still conventional generation would be required because the sun does not always shine.
22
I have been waiting forever to see someone point out this obvious fact. I have done exactly the same calculation starting with the 1400 Watts/m2 received from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere. Solar power will never produce the energy necessary to keep the 9 billion people on this planet alive. If you want to stop fracking, then get out and start agitating for nuclear power. It is the only current answer to producing the energy required to support life on this planet and prevent climate change, and will be for a long time. If you don't want to frack, go nuclear.
1
@jabobi: So, NYS has peak electricity capacity of about 40GW. Using your numbers at 200W/m^2, the area required would be about 8.5 miles on a side.
Currently about 22% of NYS comes from renewables, altough 18% of that is hydroelectric. NYS has no power-company solar now (2012 data), 2% is wind and 1% is stuff like methane recovery from landfills.
Currently about 22% of NYS comes from renewables, altough 18% of that is hydroelectric. NYS has no power-company solar now (2012 data), 2% is wind and 1% is stuff like methane recovery from landfills.
You ignore the best use of solar for individual homes by putting the panels on the roof. Energy is made and stored where it is used.
Oil is not a fossil fuel, so all of this is based on yet another lie.
In 1951, Russian scientists started practicing the abiotic petroleum drilling. Russia should have run out of oil decades ago. Essentially, the Russians have rejected that oil comes from the remains of ancient plant and animal life that died millions of years ago, but is self renewing building their entire oil industry on it.
Since the early part of the 20th century, spectrographs that analyze wavelengths have permitted astronomers to determine with certainty that carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, right after hydrogen, helium and oxygen
Scientists working at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, using the 30-meter telescope of the Institute for Radio Astronomy, have discovered a vast cloud of hydrocarbons within the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation, according to reports published in The Daily Galaxy and in the oil industry publication Rigzone. NASA confirms that the planets of our solar system contains liquid hydrocarbons, in other words lots of oil.
In 1951, Russian scientists started practicing the abiotic petroleum drilling. Russia should have run out of oil decades ago. Essentially, the Russians have rejected that oil comes from the remains of ancient plant and animal life that died millions of years ago, but is self renewing building their entire oil industry on it.
Since the early part of the 20th century, spectrographs that analyze wavelengths have permitted astronomers to determine with certainty that carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, right after hydrogen, helium and oxygen
Scientists working at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, using the 30-meter telescope of the Institute for Radio Astronomy, have discovered a vast cloud of hydrocarbons within the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation, according to reports published in The Daily Galaxy and in the oil industry publication Rigzone. NASA confirms that the planets of our solar system contains liquid hydrocarbons, in other words lots of oil.
3
While I am opposed to fracking because of health and environmental concerns, we are finding less use of coal burning, which is a positive in terms of the environment and health. That is due to greater use of natural gas.
Nothing is ever simple enough for a simple viewpoint.
Nothing is ever simple enough for a simple viewpoint.
3
Hmmm. Hard to know what is really right here. But Ms. Gore certainly does have the right to make her case as strongly as she can. The fact that she is Al Gore's daughter does not mean that as an adult she is not her own person. This sounds like something that needs to be looked into thoroughly, and there isn't much time to do that. I wonder if there's any chance that movement forward on the pipeline can be blocked, perhaps by some sort of injunction, to allow enough time to do the necessary research to make the right decision.
3
The author's grandfather, Al Gore Sr., was Executive Vice President of Occidental Petroleum and Chairman of island Creek Coal Company. One could presume that the seeds of Big Al's and her fortunes came from Al Sr.'s depredations in the fossil fuel industry.
1
The other untruth in this piece is the assumption that there are no environmental tradeoffs in "clean" energy. What if someone built a huge wind or solar facility and needed to build transmission lines to get it to the consumer? Surely there would be some maple syrup producer, organic llama farmer, or some other friend of celebrity environmentalist who would be harmed in the construction of those lines.
8
Our nation will need liquid and gaseous fuel for the foreseeable future to power transportation, electric generation and home heating. Alternative sources such as wind and solar can supplement only when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. These help but without massive storage capacity can only augment or replace a fraction of what is consumed.
Wood and coal are unsuitable as heavy polluting alternatives. Nuclear energy seems to offer promise but the anti-fossil fuel community seems unwilling to embrace it for their own reasons. Electric cars and trains have only limited infrastructure and utility, and commercial application without massive investment.
It's unfortunate that the Holleran Family lost their maple trees to a pipeline. Presumably they were compensated. Pipelines have been built for decades, crisscrossing our country with a good safety record while eliminating the need for greater train and truck traffic. Trees grow back and stream clarity reappears just as it does after heavy rainfall. A balanced view should be taken when considering projects like Constitution, unless one is prepared to forsake the conveniences of modern life provided by fossil fuels.
Wood and coal are unsuitable as heavy polluting alternatives. Nuclear energy seems to offer promise but the anti-fossil fuel community seems unwilling to embrace it for their own reasons. Electric cars and trains have only limited infrastructure and utility, and commercial application without massive investment.
It's unfortunate that the Holleran Family lost their maple trees to a pipeline. Presumably they were compensated. Pipelines have been built for decades, crisscrossing our country with a good safety record while eliminating the need for greater train and truck traffic. Trees grow back and stream clarity reappears just as it does after heavy rainfall. A balanced view should be taken when considering projects like Constitution, unless one is prepared to forsake the conveniences of modern life provided by fossil fuels.
12
We elect folks who exploit the environment. Until we stop, only NIMBY movements will sometimes succeed.
5
People, we have 10 days to halt this backwards-looking project. Make daily calls to Gov. Cuomo (877 235-6537) and ask that he "direct the DEC to deny the Constitution Pipeline its 401 Water Quality Certificate before the April 26th deadline." If the NYS DEC does not deny the certificate by that date, NYS's approval is assumed (by law) and the project will move forward. (Also, if you're a NYT subscriber, pls recommend this comment so it stays near the top of the heap.)
44
Nice comment. Please remember this is a local/regional issue. Your State and county governments are the ones you need to pressure to prevent this pipeline from happening. Get involved locally!
1
A most important, and urgent, article, calling for action to prevent yet another environmental disaster; and what for? Greed perhaps? If this project is carried out by our negligent complacency, lulled by cheaper fuel, we need our heads examined. We all are part of nature, and on which we depend, so lets stop abusing it for dubious short-term gains...unless stupidity gains the upper hand again.
7
Just like her father, Ms Gore has never had to worry about the price of staying warm in the winter. Increased natural gas prices mainly affect the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. Maybe someone should think about that.
12
Bill has it right, the silver spoon crowd doesn't have to worry about the cost associated with their "environmentally correct" agenda. Wonder if she wrote the OpEd while travelling to an environmental conference with her daddy on a G5.
7
"Increased natural gas prices mainly affect the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. Maybe someone should think about that."
Surprise, surprise! Someone has. In fact, the Gores have probably thought about it a heck of a lot more than you have. The idea I find most appealing is to tax carbon and rebate the tax to those who can least afford higher energy prices.
Surprise, surprise! Someone has. In fact, the Gores have probably thought about it a heck of a lot more than you have. The idea I find most appealing is to tax carbon and rebate the tax to those who can least afford higher energy prices.
10
I would have more sympathy for the author's argument were it based upon preservation of the maple tree farms, trout streams, and other contributors to the quality of life along the pipeline had she not revealed her true motive: That, in the interest of achieving renewable energy, we should hinder our quest to become self-sufficient in fossil fuels.
My sympathy lies with those whose lives are immediately affected by the pipeline's degradation of their environment. Not with those who would use those victims' plight to advance an agenda.
My sympathy lies with those whose lives are immediately affected by the pipeline's degradation of their environment. Not with those who would use those victims' plight to advance an agenda.
18
The author also ignores the fact that renewable energy sources tend to be just as destructive. How many hill tops have to be cleared for windmills? Then you have to create access roads and right of ways for power lines. Not to mention how many birds the blades will kill.
1
I am sure the pipeline folks are happy that pro-fracking Hillary is going to be pushed on us for Pres.
13
For most any reason this author sees as examples to block and not just restrict or re-route the path, I am in agreement. I live within a mile or two of the pipeline's path in upstate NY, close to an oh so small village that has played a small but important part in the life in the immediate area of dairy farms and families. Eminent domain, a fixture in the history of a gaxillionaire running for our presidency is disastrous as well. Can we just be left alone and let the wheels of progress turn at a not so insignificant pace now in 2016 with wind power, solar and hydro rather than encourage more fracking with all of its problems and unregulated chemicals introducing heightened frequency of earthquakes and making our water so often undrinkable.
7
Where are you going to site the solar plants and the wind turbines? Would you have had the same issues with the taking of this farms trees if they were placing a large wind turbine on the property using eminent domain to place it. How about running the transmission lines through the property to get power from a wind or solar farm to New York City. One way or another the power has to be generated and transferred to its final destination. In the process there will be losers and winners. Eminent domain is a state/county issue and not a Federal issue in his case. By the way all the worth while hydro projects have already been done and cause a lot of damage to our waterways and fisheries.
1
Please look at what's happening in PA, VA, and WVA with the Dominion Gas Pipeline - the Utility companies have us by the throats!
[email protected]
[email protected]
18
Let's see: No coal, no oil, no gas. I suppose some think we can power our system using unicorn derived methane until solar, wind, et al, are ready for prime time. I fully support renewables and reducing CO2 and all other pollutants, but I am not foolish enough to believe these will fully replace fossil fuels in my lifetime.
10
If you can't do it all in one fell swoop, then why try, right? How else can you implement change, except by putting one foot in front of the other -- or in this case, stopping one pipeline at a time?
3
So Peabody Coal has just declared bankruptcy: now the public will be stuck with the clean-up costs from all the pollution and abandoned pits. The business model for extractive industries has always been to get it out of the ground now, pay bonuses to management, transfer assets to shell companies and dump the liabilities, clean-up costs and consequences onto the public. Meanwhile you cheaply buy a few politicians and pay a few vocal thinktanks to make sure their isn't any understanding or opposition to your business plan. We will be paying for ever more abandoned and leaking natural gas wells in the future. Once in the water supply, nature gas is a huge mess. Every statement from the natural gas miners and shippers about leak rates has been shown to be a lie.
Power plants last for decades; every dollar spent building new natural gas plants is money that is not invested in alternative energy sources. Regulated utilities make their money as a percentage of their spending, distributed solar is competition. Natural gas plants are cheap to build and then impose continuous, rising fuel costs over time. Renewables have a fairly high capital cost but their long term costs are only determined by interest rates on the invested capital. Now is an ideal time to invest in renewables and other infrastructure because interest rates are so low.
Power plants last for decades; every dollar spent building new natural gas plants is money that is not invested in alternative energy sources. Regulated utilities make their money as a percentage of their spending, distributed solar is competition. Natural gas plants are cheap to build and then impose continuous, rising fuel costs over time. Renewables have a fairly high capital cost but their long term costs are only determined by interest rates on the invested capital. Now is an ideal time to invest in renewables and other infrastructure because interest rates are so low.
9
There are risks in delivering energy, ''Fracking'' it self can be destructive .
Traversing streams and rivers seems like night mare. We have new technology and bright young engineers. Let's put our country on the path to energy independence .
Traversing streams and rivers seems like night mare. We have new technology and bright young engineers. Let's put our country on the path to energy independence .
5
Again, don't want to harp on the fact that the author is a celebrity, not an expert on science or energy, but this is relevant in understanding the falsity of her argument. Currently, according to US EIA, 33% of US electricity is still produced from coal plants; replacing that with natural gas will reduce CO2 emissions from this source by half. Modernizing our gas distribution system is necessary to bring gas to where it's needed. Newly built infrastructure will have less leakage than old, and more technology to measure it. Even closer to [her] home, thousands of NYC apartment building still burn oil -- perhaps even the 4,000 SF prewar on the Upper East Side that Ms. Gore sold a few years ago. These oil burning boilers contribute to dangerous particulate emissions, unlike gas fired boilers. Again, new pipeline infrastructure will be needed to deliver the gas to where it's needed.
13
I don't know know whether I'm more horrified by the jack-booted fossil fuel industry or by the Neanderthals who have written many of these comments -- those who think that regulatory agencies are jack-booted. All trees do not grow back, Bud, not after twenty-to-fifty years of soil erosion. There are many things not to like about the state of Geogia (chiefly its politics), but this state's reverence for its environment, its natural resources, and its historic structures has helped to blunt the shock of its social and political conservatism that I felt when my husband and I retired here. In this state, not even God himself would be allowed to burn, bulldoze or otherwise destroy a single board foot that had ever been touched by a saw. And all the hosts of heaven would be jailed and bankrupted by fines for contaminating a single stream or a foot of coastline. There's that to love about this state!
6
The comment section clearly is not the place to try to educate commenters and readers about the readily available renewable energy technologies, some of them in rather small-scale use in the northeast but in large scale use in northern Europe.
I write this because my first comment outlines the possibilities but I see from a large number of comments that readers really are not interested in learning about these possibilities.
Only state action and national action will make education and realization possible. In the meantime the New York Times could give us one review article but is not interested in doing so. Individual contributions like this from Karen Gore are nice but they are no substitute for serious reporting. We get none from the Times.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen - USA SE
I write this because my first comment outlines the possibilities but I see from a large number of comments that readers really are not interested in learning about these possibilities.
Only state action and national action will make education and realization possible. In the meantime the New York Times could give us one review article but is not interested in doing so. Individual contributions like this from Karen Gore are nice but they are no substitute for serious reporting. We get none from the Times.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen - USA SE
6
Larry, you are actually educating me. I learned a lot about the Swedish renewable "CAN DO" attitude from your posts. Why has the US become a backward looking country when it comes to new energy technologies?
As you said, Sweden, Germany + other countries prove it can be done with national unity (not with our state-by-state, year-by-year patchwork approach)
As you said, Sweden, Germany + other countries prove it can be done with national unity (not with our state-by-state, year-by-year patchwork approach)
6
Karenna Gore has no idea that the United States is honeycombed with pipelines, and they do little to no damage whatsoever to the environment. Pipelines are not new - they date back for well over a century. They are the most efficient and least expensive means of moving bulk cargoes, whether it's natural gas, oil or water. They are also the least like to pollute. Yes, eminent domain allows changes to property - but the owners are compensated. This is just more left-wing rhetoric.
22
Actually, they do quite a bit of damage, and will do more.
7
The compensation is NOTHING compared to what they are taking. It is a rubber-stamp FERC giveaway to billionaires. Get real about eminent domain. It is not an abstraction to those of us who are going to be ground under its heel.
7
I would guess that the author also opposes nuclear power.
9
During the 1930's, the Tennessee Authority displaced thousands of families to build dams that brought electricity to millions and prosperity to an area plagued by malaria and poverty. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee was an enthusiastic supporter of the Authority from its inception and justifiably so, given the positive impact it had on his state. It's ironic that Ms. Gore is advocating a strategy the will dramatically raise the price of electricity and home heating bills for the millions who can least afford it. But I am sure that this does not concern her because her family has never worried about paying utility bills.
In the end, the only renewable resource that will meeting the growing energy needs of this country is uranium, not windmills or solar power. The is an inconvenient fact that Ms. Gore seems to ignore.
In the end, the only renewable resource that will meeting the growing energy needs of this country is uranium, not windmills or solar power. The is an inconvenient fact that Ms. Gore seems to ignore.
15
Uranium is renewable???
2
Interesting spin. The TVA came out of depression-era public works infrastructure boon. How many billions in current day dollars were spent to create that?
In Big Science By Michael Hiltzik, the author claims the TVA's power was the reason for siting the Oak Ridge lab for uranium enrichment, The wiki article also states that the power was used to create aluminum for airplanes during WWII.
How about a federally funded multi-billion dollar solar project so our children can have cheap power, clean air and trees?
In Big Science By Michael Hiltzik, the author claims the TVA's power was the reason for siting the Oak Ridge lab for uranium enrichment, The wiki article also states that the power was used to create aluminum for airplanes during WWII.
How about a federally funded multi-billion dollar solar project so our children can have cheap power, clean air and trees?
4
Unfortunately, solar power is very inefficient and there is no way to store the energy when the sun is not shining. I would support investing a trillion dollars on developing a fusion reactor which will solve the problem of greenhouse emissions and provided the world with unlimited energy.
1
Come on... it's called the "Constitution" pipeline; how can something with such a patriotic name be evil ;-)
8
Among so many commenters here who are doubters and proponents to continue 19th century technology I feel the need to thank the author for her article.
If some of you think that we have not scaled up solar, wind etc to match our energy needs - you are correct. You are correct because industry who has invested in now antiquated infrastructure wants to squeeze as much profit out of these as possible, regardless of global consequences.
So it is imperative that we #1 do not invest in more fossil-fuel infrastructure, and #2 put those resources into improving renewable technologies, #3 subsidize companies and jobs in those fields.
Someone here told the author to get a life. Yes, that is what she is doing. Will you join us?
If some of you think that we have not scaled up solar, wind etc to match our energy needs - you are correct. You are correct because industry who has invested in now antiquated infrastructure wants to squeeze as much profit out of these as possible, regardless of global consequences.
So it is imperative that we #1 do not invest in more fossil-fuel infrastructure, and #2 put those resources into improving renewable technologies, #3 subsidize companies and jobs in those fields.
Someone here told the author to get a life. Yes, that is what she is doing. Will you join us?
41
The people who push for these pipelines, and who allow them to be built are betraying the public trust, and the future for their own kids. Corruption or intentional ignorance, or both. No matter, the damage to all of us is huge. Hard to see the environmental pluses of fracking when it necessitates cutting down at least 700,000 trees - which give us clean air and keep temperatures lower and prevent flooding, and innumerable other contributions to our well-being. And when we destroy fresh water, and fill the ground with poison. We can't have these one way externalities. This is not real world thinking, but the behavior of childish thinking in denying realities. The time for energy conservation, solar, and better regional planning are here. CO2 400 ppm is here, we are in real danger now. We need the adults to step up and say enough.
65
Great point about the fracking water. It can be recycled and has been disposed in wells making other issues.
Ms. Gore is not totally accurate. Methane breaks down in a couple of months. Carbon Dioxide lasts years and years.
Disposal of waste water from fracking in old wells causes earthquakes . This should be banned. But she easily omits this fact Making it sound like fracking itself causes the earthquakes. Next time Ms. Gore should visit a Wind Farm to see how much environmental damage is done to establish and service these saviours.
Disposal of waste water from fracking in old wells causes earthquakes . This should be banned. But she easily omits this fact Making it sound like fracking itself causes the earthquakes. Next time Ms. Gore should visit a Wind Farm to see how much environmental damage is done to establish and service these saviours.
6
methane takes a decade or two to break down, and is 30 times (there are other numbers, mostly higher, for this estimate) more powerful. Yes, it transitions to more CO2, so that's special too.
They are additive, and we are in trouble now.
Never mind the direct toxicity, which was apparent in the recent California incident.
They are additive, and we are in trouble now.
Never mind the direct toxicity, which was apparent in the recent California incident.
4
Here is the key to stopping it , ladies and gentlemen, "New York Department of Environmental Conservation the power to deny a water-quality certificate to projects that do not meet its water-quality standards." People from across America please send a message to Emily Lloyd, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection and/or call and write to STOP this pipeline. NOW is the time. Here are links to the contact information:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/contact_us/index.shtml
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildep.html
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/contact_us/index.shtml
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildep.html
14
Any politician in favor of fracking has to live near the drill and on the gas. Is there going to ve fracking in Chappaqua?
2
I propose that New York be the first state that goes all renewable, no gas or coal generation allowed. I would like to see how long that would last...
7
And I'm sure Karenna's home is Carbon neutral. Meanwhile:
"America depends on a network of more than 185,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines, nearly 320,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines, and more than 2 million miles of gas distribution pipelines to safely and efficiently move energy and raw materials to fuel our nation's economic engine."
But while she benefits from $millions made on man made global warming fraud, the rest of America is to be denied less expensive and reliable delivery of energy to have a decent life.
Plus, does Karenna not know that barring pipelines isn't going to stop the use of those fuels, but merely change the delivery method to more dangerous means like trucks, trains, and people's cars to haul it to their homes?
Of course the impact of the their fraudulent policies on the individual are of no concern to them, they never are.
"America depends on a network of more than 185,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines, nearly 320,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines, and more than 2 million miles of gas distribution pipelines to safely and efficiently move energy and raw materials to fuel our nation's economic engine."
But while she benefits from $millions made on man made global warming fraud, the rest of America is to be denied less expensive and reliable delivery of energy to have a decent life.
Plus, does Karenna not know that barring pipelines isn't going to stop the use of those fuels, but merely change the delivery method to more dangerous means like trucks, trains, and people's cars to haul it to their homes?
Of course the impact of the their fraudulent policies on the individual are of no concern to them, they never are.
12
Maritime and Northeast pipeline recently applied to reverse direction from Maine to export facilities in Canada. Why is this important to know? Well, another pipeline is being proposed to go from the hub in Wright, NY mentioned in the article to Dracut, MA (affecting conservation land, wildlife preserves, farmland, and private property.) Once at the Dracut hub, it has a direct connection to the Maritime and Northeast pipeline and onward to being exported!
These projects are outrageous on multiple levels. We have the technology to power the earth on renewables only. Sadly, we have the way, but not the will. To learn more about the Massachusetts project you may go to nofrackedgasinmass.org
These projects are outrageous on multiple levels. We have the technology to power the earth on renewables only. Sadly, we have the way, but not the will. To learn more about the Massachusetts project you may go to nofrackedgasinmass.org
16
I agree that fossil fuels are harming the planet and we need to get off of them as soon as possible. Having said that, they still make up the majority of the heating, power generation and automotive fuel of our country, particularly in the East, where coal fired power plants supply over 50% of the power.
Unfortunately what I haven't seen is a transition plan, other than 'Stop!' to get us off fossil fuels. You do hear people talk about renewable energy, Solar & Wind, but they then decry wind farms as harmful and ugly. They also try to stop solar plants because of the impact of large solar arrays. Then there is the small detail of the sun not shining 24 hrs per day and the wind not blowing at a usable speed all the time.
We need a national energy plan that will plot the transition from fossil fuel to a more environmentally sustainable power supply, perhaps Hydrogen. It should include research in the fusion power, advanced battery systems for renewable power and research on replacing auto & transport fuels. We will also need a new infrastructure to distribute the fuel and power.
I know this sound like boring wonky stuff, but is this case it matters. To do less is to make the protest against fossil fuels just so much hot air. People will not support a movement that will leave them in the cold and dark.
Unfortunately what I haven't seen is a transition plan, other than 'Stop!' to get us off fossil fuels. You do hear people talk about renewable energy, Solar & Wind, but they then decry wind farms as harmful and ugly. They also try to stop solar plants because of the impact of large solar arrays. Then there is the small detail of the sun not shining 24 hrs per day and the wind not blowing at a usable speed all the time.
We need a national energy plan that will plot the transition from fossil fuel to a more environmentally sustainable power supply, perhaps Hydrogen. It should include research in the fusion power, advanced battery systems for renewable power and research on replacing auto & transport fuels. We will also need a new infrastructure to distribute the fuel and power.
I know this sound like boring wonky stuff, but is this case it matters. To do less is to make the protest against fossil fuels just so much hot air. People will not support a movement that will leave them in the cold and dark.
9
I have a big problem with the framing of the issue. The issue is not between coal and gas. It is between decentralization and centralization. All of Germany is above the lower 48, yet they lead in alternative energy. We can do the same here cheaper. Every man-made structure in the US should have a roof of solar collectors. Its absolute nuttiness to destroy trees for this pipeline.
27
For your consideration: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-information/how-to-save-energy/power...
My 10 panel, 2.9 kW array, won't even fire up my oven, let alone power all the other stuff that draws electricity. Switching to an resistance heater would draw an enormous amount of power and the transmission lines are already antiquated. We'll need a lot more than merely roof top solar.
My 10 panel, 2.9 kW array, won't even fire up my oven, let alone power all the other stuff that draws electricity. Switching to an resistance heater would draw an enormous amount of power and the transmission lines are already antiquated. We'll need a lot more than merely roof top solar.
6
The cost of electricity in Germany is twice as high as the cost in the United States. And because we are below the latitude of Germany, our air conditioning costs are substantially higher.
2
I doubt 10 panels covers your entire roof.
1
For me the pipelines are not he real issue, fracking on the other hand is a huge problem going forward, we all need water to survive and fracking has the potential of polluting our drinking water for generations to come, even if we aren't seeing the damage right now doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. What do we do with the millions of gallons of fracked water? This water is polluted beyond any use so we have taken to injecting it right back into the earth at high pressure, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that eventually this water will leak into our drinking water supply. I'm from New Brunswick Canada and the Fundy tides are the highest in the world therefore a huge potential for steady power for generations to come, nothing is being done in my province in terms of study to harness these tides, why? Nova Scotia presently has 3 test sites for turbines, give engineers the resources to build these turbines and within ten years we could be powering the whole east coast including the New England coast. There are alternatives to fossil fuels, we just need fossil fuel companies to get out of the way or better yet use their billions to advance renewable energy.
33
The produced water you are talking about is pumped back into the same formations that it came from - a mile to two miles below the surface - and has NO chance of affecting your drinking water based on that depth. It wasn't affecting you when it was there before, it won't be affecting you when it is pumped back into formation. This is because your drinking water, if it comes from groundwater wells, comes from aquifers within 500 feet or so of the surface at most. That is more than a mile or two of various impermeable rock formations between your drinking water and the formations where this water resides. Make whatever other arguments you want to make relative to fantasies you may have about fracing, vs the reality, but this one is just the silliest one you could make.
6
Sorry, but you are far, far off in your claims for the amount of power available from the Fundy tides (presuming you mean the east coast of the US, not the east coast of Canada):
http://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy
"That’s also an estimated potential of up to 60,000 megawatts (MW) of energy, of which up to 2,500 MW may be extracted without significant impact on our marine environment. However, the Province is aiming for a more modest 15 to 20 MW on the path to reducing cost before the goal of 300 MW of energy can be reached."
The east coast of the US consumes more than 60 GW ... 15 - 20 MW is so small that it hardly matters ... that's the mean output (given tidal duty cycle) of 5 modern wind-turbines.
Big whoop.
http://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy
"That’s also an estimated potential of up to 60,000 megawatts (MW) of energy, of which up to 2,500 MW may be extracted without significant impact on our marine environment. However, the Province is aiming for a more modest 15 to 20 MW on the path to reducing cost before the goal of 300 MW of energy can be reached."
The east coast of the US consumes more than 60 GW ... 15 - 20 MW is so small that it hardly matters ... that's the mean output (given tidal duty cycle) of 5 modern wind-turbines.
Big whoop.
So let me get this straight. The argument is that this shouldn't happen because its fossil fuel, despite that fact that the one its replacing is much more dirty and destructive to the atmosphere (coal)? This is where the environmental purists lose me. Coal is on its way out because of gas - not renewables at this point. Take half a loaf! Gas too will go away when the renewable infrastructure gets built but that will take a decade or more. Some in the eco-movement are against wind turbines because they can kill birds. Seriously? When does this fight for purity end? When we all go back to living in caves?
39
Gas won't be replaced by such unless storage is much better than today. And some are against wind turbines because they ruin their view of the ocean. Surprise??? We won't go back to caves, we will die.
2
So let me get this straight. you are willing to continue feeding the GHG emissions enough so that it wont compromise what you consider your birth right lifestyle as long as it doesn't impact you during your lifetime. As for future generations, meh.
1
The fight for purity ends when we have stabilized the climate and have a habitable world to pass on to those who will come after us.
The most obtuse must be feeling that all is not well on our planet, a planet keeping us alive and secure in space and time, a planet from which their is no escape for all 7.2 billion souls, when the inevitable disaster occurs, knowingly created by a small minority of these 7.2 billion souls, in their mindless avaricious drive to capitalize on every source of lucre.
Ms. Gore has told it like it should be told by our government, Federal and State, but as is becoming ever more clear, it takes real courage on the part of private individuals to speak out and shame our leaders into action.
We've been listening for years to so many, as they desperately seek to sound the alarm; we've been seeing the results of climate change all over the planet, the increasing breakdowns in society at large, as food and clean water become less available, rising sea levels evident everywhere, visibly so in the Maldives, where 80% of the nation is only 1 meter above sea level.
We hear Presidential candidates, notably Hillary Clinton espouse the continuation of fracking, and further development and use of fossil fuels, knowing we should be the vanguard leadership, as Bernie Sanders is, in the effort to save our planet for future generations.
Is it too late, can we stop this unfolding disaster, soon to be the death of our planet.
I believe we can, as do hundreds of millions as well.
Can Mr. Obama use his oft touted executive action tool, to do the right thing and stop fracking nationwide ?
Ms. Gore has told it like it should be told by our government, Federal and State, but as is becoming ever more clear, it takes real courage on the part of private individuals to speak out and shame our leaders into action.
We've been listening for years to so many, as they desperately seek to sound the alarm; we've been seeing the results of climate change all over the planet, the increasing breakdowns in society at large, as food and clean water become less available, rising sea levels evident everywhere, visibly so in the Maldives, where 80% of the nation is only 1 meter above sea level.
We hear Presidential candidates, notably Hillary Clinton espouse the continuation of fracking, and further development and use of fossil fuels, knowing we should be the vanguard leadership, as Bernie Sanders is, in the effort to save our planet for future generations.
Is it too late, can we stop this unfolding disaster, soon to be the death of our planet.
I believe we can, as do hundreds of millions as well.
Can Mr. Obama use his oft touted executive action tool, to do the right thing and stop fracking nationwide ?
1
The most obtuse must be feeling that all is not well on our planet, a planet keeping us alive and secure in space and time, a planet from which there is no escape for all 7.2 billion souls, when the inevitable disaster occurs, knowingly created by a small minority of these 7.2 billion souls, in their mindless avaricious drive to capitalize on every source of lucre.
Ms. Gore has told it like it should be told by our government, Federal and State, but as is becoming ever more clear, it takes real courage on the part of private individuals to speak out and shame our leaders into action.
We've been listening for years to so many, as they desperately seek to sound the alarm; we've been seeing the results of climate change all over the planet, the increasing breakdowns in society at large, as food and clean water become less available, rising sea levels evident everywhere, visibly so in the Maldives, where 80% of the nation is only 1 meter above sea level.
We hear Presidential candidates, notably Hillary Clinton espouse the continuation of fracking, and further development and use of fossil fuels, knowing we should be the vanguard leadership, as Bernie Sanders is, in the effort to save our planet for future generations.
Is it too late, can we stop this unfolding disaster, soon to be the death of our planet.
I believe we can, as do hundreds of millions as well.
Can Mr. Obama use his oft touted executive action tool, to do the right thing and stop fracking nationwide ?
Ms. Gore has told it like it should be told by our government, Federal and State, but as is becoming ever more clear, it takes real courage on the part of private individuals to speak out and shame our leaders into action.
We've been listening for years to so many, as they desperately seek to sound the alarm; we've been seeing the results of climate change all over the planet, the increasing breakdowns in society at large, as food and clean water become less available, rising sea levels evident everywhere, visibly so in the Maldives, where 80% of the nation is only 1 meter above sea level.
We hear Presidential candidates, notably Hillary Clinton espouse the continuation of fracking, and further development and use of fossil fuels, knowing we should be the vanguard leadership, as Bernie Sanders is, in the effort to save our planet for future generations.
Is it too late, can we stop this unfolding disaster, soon to be the death of our planet.
I believe we can, as do hundreds of millions as well.
Can Mr. Obama use his oft touted executive action tool, to do the right thing and stop fracking nationwide ?
3
There is no such thing as "fracked gas." The gas that will flow through the Constitution Pipeline will be no different than gas flowing through other natural gas pipelines. Between 2005 and 2014, the number of New York natural gas customers went from 3.7 to 4.2 million. The heating oil that other New Yorkers use to heat their homes is similar to diesel fuel. Like natural gas, it reaches refineries and distribution centers by pipelines. Unlike natural gas, heating oil has to be transported from distribution points to homes and commercial buildings by tank trucks. Pipelines are by far the safest way to deliver petroleum products. They do far less damage to the environment that telephone and electoral power lines. (New York City alone still has 20,313 miles of overhead electric lines.) The Constitution Pipeline will run 124-mile from Susquehanna County, Pa., to Schoharie County, N.Y. (New York already has 53,542 miles of liquid and natural gas transmission pipelines.) The Constitution Pipeline will join the Tennessee and Iroquois pipelines, which now deliver natural gas to New York City, allowing them to switch more customers to cleaner-burning natural gas.
6
Emotional appeals aside - natural gas is by far our best fuel alternative.
Renewable - a misnomer if there ever was one. Wind - I live in Pennsylvania and your going to tell me that covering every ridge with massive wind turbines, cutting down tens of thousands of trees, cutting in roads to bring in all that heavy equipment, trenching in thousands of miles for electrical cables is good for the environment? Not to mention that when the wind stops so does our electricity.
Your concern for the poor - does that extend to the hefty increases in the utility bills and taxes to pay for all this infrastructure? I didn't think so.
Solar power in PA - nope - that is a pure none starter.
Biomass for ethanol - Even Al Gore admits this was a very bad idea. But you folks created an ethanol lobby and we are now stuck paying for something that actually pollutes more that the substance it was designed to replace.
But yet the long list of emotional appeals to some Utopian natural world that mankind spent its entire history trying to insulate itself from is used like a bludgeon as the only real argument. The world will warm - it has many many times since the earth was formed. We probably are causing some of that. But frankly - if we stopped burning fossil fuels entirely today - the difference in warming in minuscule.
I really suspect that the real core opposition is not about fuel but about profits generated from fuel and that rage that many feel for energy companies.
Renewable - a misnomer if there ever was one. Wind - I live in Pennsylvania and your going to tell me that covering every ridge with massive wind turbines, cutting down tens of thousands of trees, cutting in roads to bring in all that heavy equipment, trenching in thousands of miles for electrical cables is good for the environment? Not to mention that when the wind stops so does our electricity.
Your concern for the poor - does that extend to the hefty increases in the utility bills and taxes to pay for all this infrastructure? I didn't think so.
Solar power in PA - nope - that is a pure none starter.
Biomass for ethanol - Even Al Gore admits this was a very bad idea. But you folks created an ethanol lobby and we are now stuck paying for something that actually pollutes more that the substance it was designed to replace.
But yet the long list of emotional appeals to some Utopian natural world that mankind spent its entire history trying to insulate itself from is used like a bludgeon as the only real argument. The world will warm - it has many many times since the earth was formed. We probably are causing some of that. But frankly - if we stopped burning fossil fuels entirely today - the difference in warming in minuscule.
I really suspect that the real core opposition is not about fuel but about profits generated from fuel and that rage that many feel for energy companies.
29
You need to do your home work. Not one thing you cite is correct. Implying that opposition is about jealousy of the rich is a conservative christian thing and explains your reasoning.
3
Hello KARENNA GORE, Are you going to pay the difference in costs for using energy acceptable to you rather than natural gas? Natural gas is being used to substitute for higher carbon producing sources. It is a major evolutionary step that helps the climate and all consumers.
5
Good luck, New York
1
The Constitution Pipeline will permit more New Yorkers to switch from heating oil to cleaner-burning natural gas. The heating oil most New Yorker use is liquid petroleum similar to diesel fuel. They have to store it in their bases and garages. Heating oil also comes from fracked wells and reaches refineries and distribution centers by pipeline. Most oil and gas wells are fracked. The new technology that permits drillers to extract natural gas and oil from shale formations is horizontal drilling. Fracking was tried, but didn’t work in shale formations until horizontal drilling technologies were perfected. However, fracking isn’t limited to natural gas well or to shale formations. It’s sued in most oil and gas fields.
5
The number of trees she cites sounds excessive, who counted them? I suggest she start a movement to plant more trees along the pipeline right-of-ways.
3
More trees on the rights of way simply mean more lumber revenue for the companies when they cut them down.
Take this story in PA and multiply it a hundred times in areas all across the country. Fracking is an imminent danger to our world in the near future as more land and fresh water is used to extract this fossil fuel. It is a temporary fix with disastrous consequences. It is time to move away from this fossil fuel insanity. We witness daily how our environment is changing but the addiction of fossil fuel is centered around an industry in denial and their cohorts in government that are either extremely stupid or self consumed in their political ambitions and greed without the slightest care to environmental damage and property rights of people in far off regions.
3
The holier than thou ultra left wants you to be poorer, sweatier during the summer and colder in the winter. They think you should suffer. Rather than looking at science and statistics for real answers, they behave just like the ultra right who denies climate change is even happening. If you stop fracking and stop pipelines carrying low CO2 emission NG, you will turn to coal. Coal absolutely has the greatest negative impact on the environment of any fossil fuel. yet rather than dealing with facts and how we can make impacts on CO2 emissions today, the author sticks her head in the sand and appeals to emotion.
No facts. No stats. Just emotional outbursts of the new age Luddites.
No facts. No stats. Just emotional outbursts of the new age Luddites.
7
Wonderful piece, Karenna Gore! Horrendous that the Constitution Pipeline that will carry fracked gas from Pennsylvania to Wright NY and then take the gas to New England can use eminent domain to despoil our countryside. Fracking is as horrendous for the lands of Pennsylvania and other states (N. Dakota) as poisoned waters in Michigan, fires and drought elsewhere. That New York's Department of Environmental Conservation can deny massive tree-cutting (700,000 trees) and despoliatpin of dozens of trout streams and spawning areas must be effectuated. Time is of the essence. Pipelines of fracking tar sands are the awful spawn of fossil fuels. Ms Gore, your words are a rallying cry - "The Constitution Pipeline is the wrong delivery system, using the wrong fuel, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" - there is nothing natural about fracking which may well cause earthquakes and contaminate waters no matter where it is allowed to occur. Our landscapes must not be torn up in the quixotic pie in the sky quest for fossil fuels, which are now as obsolete as whale oil and corduroy roads.
6
As advertised on the NY Times:
http://livesmarterdaily.co/home-owners-in-united-states-are-furious-with...
http://livesmarterdaily.co/home-owners-in-united-states-are-furious-with...
Ms. Gore writes from the agenda learned at her Father's Knee. The reality is that fracking on private property enables the generation of private wealth. When citizens can obtain financial/monetary resources independent of the government (both state and federal), the loudest voices heard are those of VP Gore's ilk. In short, WE MUST NOT EVER ALLOW THE LAY CITIZEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE INDEPENDENT DECISIONS and that IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER TO KEEP THESE CITIZENS DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT LARGESSE.
Ms. Gore did not learn her science as I have (ca. 40 years post-graduate actual work experience in science and engineering). The atmosphere is not saturated with carbon dioxide. In earlier geologic times, the concentration of CO2 was well in excess of the 400 parts per million recently measured in Hawaii.
Ms. Gore also demonstrates a nearly complete lack of understanding of the fracking process. The issue with earthquakes deals with the injection of waste-water into underground fissures. This issue is being resolved by minds far greater than Ms. Gore's and mine.
I suggest that when Ms. Gore fills up with motor fuel what I presume to her SUV, I'd like to remind her that this cost has dropped from ca. $100 per fill-up to something possibly less than $60.00 per fill-up. The collapse in the price per barrel of oil and refined products (gasoline) is due (in part) to fracking. Why shouldn't those in Upstate New York benefit, as our cousins in Pennsylvania already are?
Ms. Gore did not learn her science as I have (ca. 40 years post-graduate actual work experience in science and engineering). The atmosphere is not saturated with carbon dioxide. In earlier geologic times, the concentration of CO2 was well in excess of the 400 parts per million recently measured in Hawaii.
Ms. Gore also demonstrates a nearly complete lack of understanding of the fracking process. The issue with earthquakes deals with the injection of waste-water into underground fissures. This issue is being resolved by minds far greater than Ms. Gore's and mine.
I suggest that when Ms. Gore fills up with motor fuel what I presume to her SUV, I'd like to remind her that this cost has dropped from ca. $100 per fill-up to something possibly less than $60.00 per fill-up. The collapse in the price per barrel of oil and refined products (gasoline) is due (in part) to fracking. Why shouldn't those in Upstate New York benefit, as our cousins in Pennsylvania already are?
9
The collapse of oil prices is more because of the Saudi's refusal to cut back production, than to fracking.
2
The drop in oil prices is directly the result of increased US fuel production, "Drill baby, drill" actually worked.
I suspect you tried to tell us it wouldn't...
I suspect you tried to tell us it wouldn't...
Natural gas is the cheapest, cleanest, safest, and most efficient means for home heating. The author's hyperbole would condemn all of New England to the continued use of Home Heating Oil and the extra expense and increased pollution that goes with it. It is a shame she can't bother with actual scientific research and is limited to googling the internet for "green" talking points that confirm her political bias.
16
The single most important fact one needs to know is omitted from this article. The natural gas being piped into New England would help break the heating oil monopoly in the region. The oil industry will stop at nothing in order to maintain this highly lucrative business. Back in 1984, Lilco's Shoreham nuclear power plant was ready to go on line. The electricity from this unit would have reduced the cost of power to the point where home heat pumps would have been competitive with heating oil. A massive "grass roots" campaign resulted in Shoreham being dismantled. Much later, the truth came out. The grassroots campaign was being financed by big oil. Here we go again.
8
Pseudo-environmentalist have become our current day Luddites. They blindly oppose all forms of carbon based fuels. They fantastically think that "natural" power, such as wind and solar, are ready to replace oil, natural gas and coal - with little to no impact on the environment or our infrastructure. And they almost never talk about what lifestyle changes need to be made in order for us to rationally and efficiently curtail our use of ALL energy.
Ms. Gore's op-ed is a showpiece highlighting all those "progressive" misconceptions and delusions. A crank is still a crank even when pushing a liberal, elitist agenda such as in this piece by Ms. Gore.
Ms. Gore's op-ed is a showpiece highlighting all those "progressive" misconceptions and delusions. A crank is still a crank even when pushing a liberal, elitist agenda such as in this piece by Ms. Gore.
12
They are proposing to steal my land by eminent domain, destroy the value of my property by placing a 30" high pressure gas pipeline 100' from my house, cut thousands of trees down, and spew toxins into the air from a nearby compressor plant. And I get practically nothing. Your comment is clueless blather, typical right-wing talking points!
6
This is not knee-jerk opposition. It is now scientifically documented that fracking both pollutes water supplies and contributes huge amounts of methane into the environment. You can pretend climate change isn't happening (and yes, will be bad for business) but it is happening at an accelerated pace so this is basic common sense. The amount of infrastructure (which affect small towns, where I live) has no upside for our community.
5
I've never seen a truly unbiased report that showed that fracking pollutes local water supplies. I don't pretend global warming or climate change or whatever you are calling it this week isn't happening, but I do have a difference of opinion on how to tackle it. I really don't believe in the organizations that are supposed to be working on it. Just more money ciphoning for the rich and famous and those that want to be.
A large portion of homes in the North East and New England are heated with oil, a much dirtier fuel than natural gas. I suppose, with subsidies, that homeowners could be convinced to convert to electric heat pumps, but electricity would still have to generated in a region without large solar or on-land wind resources.
Any solution is a balance of imperfect outcomes. I would be more sympathetic to the author's arguments if she had proposed other solutions, such as tidal electric generation or off-shore windmills. Cut down trees or "spoil" expensive ocean front views with wind mills?
Any solution is a balance of imperfect outcomes. I would be more sympathetic to the author's arguments if she had proposed other solutions, such as tidal electric generation or off-shore windmills. Cut down trees or "spoil" expensive ocean front views with wind mills?
2
@ Gigi – Gigi my comment was accepted 58 minutes ago and should appear down a bit from yours but I do not see it there. Here is the URL http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/opinion/stop-a-pipeline-for-fracked-ga...
I refer readers to heat pump systems and add here the following: I am writing from a small home on Styrsö from which I can see Big Glenn the giant wind turbine being tested on land at the entrance to Göteborgs harbour. Big Glenn is a GE product.
This home is basically heated by a single heat pump. Such a heat pump is now as common in Sweden as refrigerators. Installation is quick and these heat pumps are highly efficient. A little further up the bedrock hills there are many homes with Ground Source Geothermal – installed in one day – and a new home whose owner told me he was installing air-water heat pump system.
I do not see why any subsidies should be needed although Geoexchange.org or com tried to get the Congress to pass a bill recently to provide subsidies. Congress said no.
Times comments are not a suitable place to educate more than a few people. The only person I know who tried to do this in New England is Bernie Sanders in 2013. The Times is not interested.
OIl heating in New England is ridiculous.
I hope to bring my blog up to date on this in a few days but am editing a manuscript for Swedish cancer researchers so cannot do that now.
Larry
I refer readers to heat pump systems and add here the following: I am writing from a small home on Styrsö from which I can see Big Glenn the giant wind turbine being tested on land at the entrance to Göteborgs harbour. Big Glenn is a GE product.
This home is basically heated by a single heat pump. Such a heat pump is now as common in Sweden as refrigerators. Installation is quick and these heat pumps are highly efficient. A little further up the bedrock hills there are many homes with Ground Source Geothermal – installed in one day – and a new home whose owner told me he was installing air-water heat pump system.
I do not see why any subsidies should be needed although Geoexchange.org or com tried to get the Congress to pass a bill recently to provide subsidies. Congress said no.
Times comments are not a suitable place to educate more than a few people. The only person I know who tried to do this in New England is Bernie Sanders in 2013. The Times is not interested.
OIl heating in New England is ridiculous.
I hope to bring my blog up to date on this in a few days but am editing a manuscript for Swedish cancer researchers so cannot do that now.
Larry
1
Larry, thanks for your comment.
The problem in much of the U.S. is population density. The entire country of Sweden has just under 10 million people, while the Boston metropolitan area is about 8 million. I think heat pumps are the answer but delivery of all the needed electricity for space heating is a major undertaking. Off shore windmills make sense, but owners of expensive ocean front property are complaining loudly. If green power has to come long distances, power transmission lines will be required with a lot of lost trees. There's an elegance to windmills that I wish the landowners could learn to appreciate. Still, in the end money will win.
The problem in much of the U.S. is population density. The entire country of Sweden has just under 10 million people, while the Boston metropolitan area is about 8 million. I think heat pumps are the answer but delivery of all the needed electricity for space heating is a major undertaking. Off shore windmills make sense, but owners of expensive ocean front property are complaining loudly. If green power has to come long distances, power transmission lines will be required with a lot of lost trees. There's an elegance to windmills that I wish the landowners could learn to appreciate. Still, in the end money will win.
1
Anyone with a mind and heart can see this planned atrocity is wrong !
We must find a way to stop the ongoing rape of the land. It will be too
late if we all don't wake up soon and say "Enough" !
We must find a way to stop the ongoing rape of the land. It will be too
late if we all don't wake up soon and say "Enough" !
22
And yet, the NYT endorses the Queen of Frack herself. Bread buttered on the same side?
2
Bernie is against fracking. Depending on the situation HRC might be!
Be informed. involved. Write to Governor Cuomo.
Demand that he and the DEC deny the 401 permit to allow the pipeline to endanger NY waterways.
http://dec.stopthepipeline.org/
https://beyondextremeenergy.org/2016/03/12/gov-cuomo-deny-the-401/
Demand that he and the DEC deny the 401 permit to allow the pipeline to endanger NY waterways.
http://dec.stopthepipeline.org/
https://beyondextremeenergy.org/2016/03/12/gov-cuomo-deny-the-401/
34
Let's also take full account of:
1. Environmental impact of building new electrical transmission lines to carry power from new wind and solar developments
2. The sight pollution caused by new onshore and offshore wind developments
3. The impact on birds and other species caused by wind turbines and solar power arrays
4. The additional carbon generated by peaker natural gas plants that need to be constructed alongside new solar and wind generation because those sources of power are intermittent
5. The cost of subsidies to new renewable generation, without which much less of said generation would be built
6. The cost, especially to lower income members of our society, of higher cost renewable power vis-a-vis coal and natural gas
7. The cost, as yet undefined, for disposing of all the batteries that will result from an explosion in electric vehicles
Or a guess we could all go back to living in a cave.
1. Environmental impact of building new electrical transmission lines to carry power from new wind and solar developments
2. The sight pollution caused by new onshore and offshore wind developments
3. The impact on birds and other species caused by wind turbines and solar power arrays
4. The additional carbon generated by peaker natural gas plants that need to be constructed alongside new solar and wind generation because those sources of power are intermittent
5. The cost of subsidies to new renewable generation, without which much less of said generation would be built
6. The cost, especially to lower income members of our society, of higher cost renewable power vis-a-vis coal and natural gas
7. The cost, as yet undefined, for disposing of all the batteries that will result from an explosion in electric vehicles
Or a guess we could all go back to living in a cave.
6
The bridge is washed out ahead and our train has lost its braking system. Your philosophy would be to speed up and take a chance of getting across the ravine. My preference would be to use all our knowledge and ability to slow the train down before reaching the disaster point.
2
It is annoying to hear the same falsehoods over and over and over again.
Fact is, birds are relatively unharmed by most wind power, and deeply harmed by fossil fuels.
Just a start.
Fact is, birds are relatively unharmed by most wind power, and deeply harmed by fossil fuels.
Just a start.
Sorry green boys and girls. You cannot have it both ways. You either want to reduce coal emissions by increasing natural gas or you want to keep those coal emission by preventing gas getting to markets. The only thing that will reduce fracking is preventing the construction of pipelines.
5
It might be necessary to burn some natural gas for a while, but to build any large, new fossil-fuel projects at this point is nonsensical. Modern, inverter-controlled heat pumps, eventually powered by renewable electricity sources, can heat homes and buildings at a cost that is competitive with gas, even at its temporarily collapsed price. Unfortunately, you can't outlaw installation of new gas furnaces, but you can, with ample justification, use all public policy tools available to discourage fossil fuel use, including making its transport more difficult and expensive.
34
Please define some and a while. Around here we heat our homes with gas, generate a lot of energy with it as well. We also have solar farms and hydro, and of course massive nuclear plants to power our economy. You in NY want no nuclear, argue over offshore wind, no gas. I don't care if you are cold and have no jobs, that is your choice.
As of today what fuel(s) should we use. I want to know how I should heat my house, fuel my car, charge my phone, computers, etc. Please tell me - I am waiting. Bring on the pipe. Have you have been to the southern tier of New York - unbelievable poverty. Fracking should have been allowed in New York and cheap natural gas should be made available to as many customers as possible. All the other energy sources including solar and wind are much more expensive and massive infrastructure needs to be built. I am not afraid of global warning - I like the warmer winters and the year round rise in temperature. If we really want to eliminate all fossil fuels let's have a "Manhattan like project" to develop the energy sources, but till then natural gas is the way to go with of course nuclear but I know I digress.
Yes, an analysis should include the full costs - but it should also be offset by the full benefits of cheap energy provides us. Our energy independence keeps U.S. dollars within our system instead of flowing to the Middle East and allows us to keep eye on key environmental concern. If we need the energy anyway (we do), would you rather have Saudi Arabia drilling and then shipping to us, or harvesting our own resources, creating jobs and wealth here.
"Green" energy is nowhere near as efficient or available at the moment for us to be taken off of fossil fuel and the NYT is a charlatan for telling people otherwise.
"Green" energy is nowhere near as efficient or available at the moment for us to be taken off of fossil fuel and the NYT is a charlatan for telling people otherwise.
7
We are slowing realizing that fracking is the Faustian bargain that we cannot afford. The degradation to water quality as well as the forests noted here is more than we can afford if we're really serious about dealing with climate change. We need to protect our planet and stop pretending that temporizing measures like fracking and its associated pipelines are not inflicting more, potentially fatal, wounds.
85
First the planet will be fine and what fatal (to American citizens) wounds are you referring to. Natural gas is the generation fuel of choice in the US today, it has killed coal.
2
While I favor as rapid a conversion to renewable energy as possible, it is flat silly to think this will happen tomorrow. If you block natural gas, hello coal and other fossil fuels like home heating oil, and all of the environmental disasters that have accrued over the years with their extraction and use. The type of argument used by this writer reminds me of the views of the extremist anti-logging forces. While I often agreed with much of what they were saying about preservation of the last stands of old growth forest, in other respects they were just ridiculous, and all said from inside wood-framed houses. The case at hand may have merit, but overall we have to put it in perspective; these aren't old-growth stands of maple. Most of the northeast, including Pennsylvania, was farmland, and the tree cover is secondary (old growth long ago fell to the axe). Those farms were built by displacing indigenous peoples. Saying that a boutique maple syrup farm's loss should determine public policy makes no more sense than the same argument offered from the other side when made in defense of logging or coal extraction jobs. Make extraction safer, fix the storage and transport infrastructure for natgas, do the job of building pipelines right and environmentally compatible, and invest in wind and solar. Of course, once that gets under way in earnest we'll hear more about the visual impact of wind turbines, their effects on bird migrations, the mining of component materials....
13
jack booted federal thugs wrecking American families with government power.
Do you not believe in eminent domain? Should every highway and road wind around individual preference at a cost of tens or hundreds of billions? Of course you don't.
So why lead with the image? You would seem to be a propagandist with a low opinion of your readers.
And the trees, think of them! you use large numbers in the hopes of shocking people who have less time to think on it, but the reality is there are more trees now in the east than there were 100 or 200 years ago, because farms like this have been given back to forest.
On climate change of course you areon firmer ground, but you make no note of the cost or tradeoffs, insteed just trying to inflame
What is the cost borne by the NE due to inadequate pipleines for electric and gas heat?
What was your electric bill last month? can you guess within $50? your education and biography, combined with this job, indicate you are a person rich with others money. And the article indicates, I am afraid, only the contempt for thought and ignorance of normal peoples lives that conservatives love to mock. You are unfortunately helping the wrong side I fear.
Do you not believe in eminent domain? Should every highway and road wind around individual preference at a cost of tens or hundreds of billions? Of course you don't.
So why lead with the image? You would seem to be a propagandist with a low opinion of your readers.
And the trees, think of them! you use large numbers in the hopes of shocking people who have less time to think on it, but the reality is there are more trees now in the east than there were 100 or 200 years ago, because farms like this have been given back to forest.
On climate change of course you areon firmer ground, but you make no note of the cost or tradeoffs, insteed just trying to inflame
What is the cost borne by the NE due to inadequate pipleines for electric and gas heat?
What was your electric bill last month? can you guess within $50? your education and biography, combined with this job, indicate you are a person rich with others money. And the article indicates, I am afraid, only the contempt for thought and ignorance of normal peoples lives that conservatives love to mock. You are unfortunately helping the wrong side I fear.
4
What was your electric bill last month? can you guess within $50? your education and biography, combined with this job, indicate you are a person rich with others money.
================
The Gore family fortune comes from selling their TV network to oil-rich sheiks
================
The Gore family fortune comes from selling their TV network to oil-rich sheiks
Oh dear! This woman seems like a nice person, but she really ought to get a life!
There is nothing mankind can do to alter even regional climates for more than a decade or two. The half-life of atmospheric CO2 is some thirty-five years -- by then, half of the concentration will be part of green things and chalky things alike.
The threat to our civilization is by people like Ms. Gore who would imprison us for disagreeing with her and who insists on telling us how to live our lives.
There is nothing mankind can do to alter even regional climates for more than a decade or two. The half-life of atmospheric CO2 is some thirty-five years -- by then, half of the concentration will be part of green things and chalky things alike.
The threat to our civilization is by people like Ms. Gore who would imprison us for disagreeing with her and who insists on telling us how to live our lives.
6
the whole "half life of CO2" concept is a red herring. Carbon dioxide does not decay like a radioactive element into something else. It goes through chemical transformation in the miracle of photosynthesis, but as the plant dies and decays, it comes right back into the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs CO2, but it becomes less absorbant as the PH responds, and then expiration occurs (while the oceans warm disrupting its life forms drastically. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for CO2 to be "permanently" locked up in rock. All this pseudoscience rationalization to keep pumping CO2 (and methane) into our warming atmosphere is ... I'm at a loss... short sighted? self indulgent? stupid?
3
Editor: Certainly this piece has received more than 4 comments. Why are the comments (including my earlier one) being embargoed?
1
You do know that they review and post them en masse don't you.
1
Let's not forget the Sandpiper Line owned by Enbridge that brings Bakken Crude from Canada and fracked ND oil across MN to northern Wisconsin. The pipeline crosses Indian Reservations, nature areas near the headwaters of the Mississippi River and areas of pristine lakes. There are talks of shipping oil from Superior WI via Lake Superior. If any of the pipelines leak into the Mississippi Headwaters, it would be devastating for the Twin Cities drinking water at the very least. If it spills into Lake Superior, it would be difficult to clean up do to its currents and varied depths. Once again, devastating.
36
Bakken crude comes from North Dakota, not Canada.
1
Arguments always built on "what if". Apocalyptic visions of devastation. Its funny how these never happen. MIT, EPA, Univ of Cincinatti have a debunked the fracking pollutes ground water myth - but it is part of every anti-fracking mantra uttered in north america. It would seem things as inconvenient as facts will not be permitted in this discussion.
3
One way to eliminate the need for this pipeline is for those opposed to it to stop using natural gas and to convert to renewables.
1
Well - that proves my point. Environmental advocates have zero contact with reality.
How many of those who oppose the pipeline (which I suspect is a very small number) have the resources to "convert" to renewables? Are you saying that home owners should purches $20,000 or more in solar panels or wind generators just to try and hurt the energy company?
do you live in the North? An apartment in the city? How about you tell your landlord you are going to move out unless he converts the building to "renewable" energy? Better have the number of a moving company handy when your neighbors find out.
How many of those who oppose the pipeline (which I suspect is a very small number) have the resources to "convert" to renewables? Are you saying that home owners should purches $20,000 or more in solar panels or wind generators just to try and hurt the energy company?
do you live in the North? An apartment in the city? How about you tell your landlord you are going to move out unless he converts the building to "renewable" energy? Better have the number of a moving company handy when your neighbors find out.
4
If switching to renewables were as easy and cost-effective as switching to gas, I'm sure they would. After all burning stuff is subsidized by all of us. Sustainables are still seen as interlopers by those in charge -- those with deep pockets and plenty of clout.
I believe one of the Democratic candidates for US President (Bernie Sanders) is outspoken in opposing fracking while the other candidate (Hillary Clinton) has supported fracking. It is unfortunate that point was not emphasized in this otherwise excellent article.
4
There's more than one reason why renewable energy isn't yet up to the needs of the nation, and those other reasons are denied by the climate change deniers.
And what is that group of reasons? Why, opposition by power and fossil fuel companies! For example, in at least two of the sunniest states, Nevada and Florida, the power companies vigorously and furiously oppose any and all moves to solar power, ESPECIALLY that installed by individual home-owners. The extra costs, penalties and surtaxes imposed on solar homes in Nevada and proposed in Florida, make it financially impossible to install and maintain a solar home. Why? Because it cuts into the "business model" of power companies that relies on constant expansion and building more and more fossil fuel power plants--a HUGE source of carbon emissions and of no benefit to anyone but....the power companies.
The fossil fuel companies, too, have vigorously opposed solar and any other renewable power. Of course, the oil&coal forms of fossil fuel also oppose NG...unless they are invested in it.
The power companies have resisted expanding the infrastructure to allow the electricity generated by the vast Texas wind farms to fully get into the grid. Last I read, the Texas wind farms could only run at half capacity.
I have often wondered why the excess capacity of wind and solar farms cannot be used to crack water into H2 and O2, to be used as fuel that has all the benefits of fossil fuels, and none of the polluting issues.
And what is that group of reasons? Why, opposition by power and fossil fuel companies! For example, in at least two of the sunniest states, Nevada and Florida, the power companies vigorously and furiously oppose any and all moves to solar power, ESPECIALLY that installed by individual home-owners. The extra costs, penalties and surtaxes imposed on solar homes in Nevada and proposed in Florida, make it financially impossible to install and maintain a solar home. Why? Because it cuts into the "business model" of power companies that relies on constant expansion and building more and more fossil fuel power plants--a HUGE source of carbon emissions and of no benefit to anyone but....the power companies.
The fossil fuel companies, too, have vigorously opposed solar and any other renewable power. Of course, the oil&coal forms of fossil fuel also oppose NG...unless they are invested in it.
The power companies have resisted expanding the infrastructure to allow the electricity generated by the vast Texas wind farms to fully get into the grid. Last I read, the Texas wind farms could only run at half capacity.
I have often wondered why the excess capacity of wind and solar farms cannot be used to crack water into H2 and O2, to be used as fuel that has all the benefits of fossil fuels, and none of the polluting issues.
6
You completely misunderstand opposition to residential rooftop solar. Big solar's business model is to have the excess power created by rooftop solar sold back to the electric utility at retail rates. This means that those that can't afford rooftop solar is required to pay those rates, so that other utility customers are paying and subsidizing the folk who install the rooftop solar. On the order of 5 times what bulk electrical generation costs. In Nevada the power company desires to keep electricity rates down, and since rooftop solar is by far the most expensive power they are justly opposed to it.
You also misunderstand problems with wind generation, but I don't have time to educate you.
You also misunderstand problems with wind generation, but I don't have time to educate you.
She could just as well write an article decrying the use of mandated ethanol, but she won't.
10
Climate change and our use of oil is complicated. But instead of replacing one hydrocarbon for another, there are other alternatives. Mass transit, buses, carpooling, bicycling, lowering the population, fuel efficiency. We have a choice to either change our lifestyle while lowering our own numbers by one child incentives or face increasingly severe weather, droughts, floods and rising seas. And not just climate change, but our own numbers are fueling depletion of resources including clean air and water, and the greatest extinction rate in 65 million years. It is common sense but the 1%'s media and politicians will not tell you this because they want more consumers. David Attenborough and Jane Goodall will at populationmatters.org
5
I am always curious how folk like you propose to lower the population?
4
They'd only allow liberals to reproduce.
2
Some people had imaginary friends as children. Unfortunately, some adults, like Ms. Gore, have an imaginary enemy -- climate change. Fossil fuels helped make this country great and helped to drag us out of the agrarian 19th and early 20th centuries, brought us air conditioning, heating (without having to chop and haul wood), as well as all the comforts of modern life such as travel, products people would have never dreamed off and helped make us the wealthiest nation on earth. In fact, to say fossil fuel helped all these things come along is wrong - without fossil fuels they would have never happened.
Yet to some, fossil fuel is the bogey man. There really isn't anything to see (Ms. Gore's reference to stronger storms and flooding is the product of a febrile imagination), yet somehow they all know, these adults with their imaginary enemy, that the bogey man is hiding in the closet someplace.
Speaking of cutting down trees -- trees grow back -- it's what they do. But imagine a country with 300 million plus citizens needing to warm themselves without fossil fuels -- how many trees would they cut and burn in winter? My guess, hundreds of millions -- they'd also to have fix dinner and things like that.
And don't tell me solar panels and wind farms. Forget their inability to scale up, without fossil fuels they could have never been built, shipped or installed.
If CC should actually occur -- we will use fossil fuels to defeat it. End of story.
Yet to some, fossil fuel is the bogey man. There really isn't anything to see (Ms. Gore's reference to stronger storms and flooding is the product of a febrile imagination), yet somehow they all know, these adults with their imaginary enemy, that the bogey man is hiding in the closet someplace.
Speaking of cutting down trees -- trees grow back -- it's what they do. But imagine a country with 300 million plus citizens needing to warm themselves without fossil fuels -- how many trees would they cut and burn in winter? My guess, hundreds of millions -- they'd also to have fix dinner and things like that.
And don't tell me solar panels and wind farms. Forget their inability to scale up, without fossil fuels they could have never been built, shipped or installed.
If CC should actually occur -- we will use fossil fuels to defeat it. End of story.
11
So stuck in the 19th century.
1
Yes. tress grow back - in 50 or 60 years, they might be large enough to be used to harvest maple sap from. Climate change is actually happening. Denial does not change the reality of retreating glaciers and rising seas. Denial does not change the fact that the RATE of change is unprecedented and matches the rise in fossil fuel consumption.
As for wind farms and the like, they do scale up nicely. Here in Colorado wind now accounts for 13% of all electricity in the state. Germany gets over 1/4 of it's energy from renewable sources. That's a lot of coal and natural gas NOT being burned. Further, it also takes energy to process and transport natural gas, oil, and coal, just like it does to manufacture wind turbines. Wind turbines do not continue to produce emissions over their lifetime, however.
The Age of Petroleum was great, but it is not the future.
As for wind farms and the like, they do scale up nicely. Here in Colorado wind now accounts for 13% of all electricity in the state. Germany gets over 1/4 of it's energy from renewable sources. That's a lot of coal and natural gas NOT being burned. Further, it also takes energy to process and transport natural gas, oil, and coal, just like it does to manufacture wind turbines. Wind turbines do not continue to produce emissions over their lifetime, however.
The Age of Petroleum was great, but it is not the future.
2
Thats for the laugh!
Does NYT only like private property rights when it has to do with something the NYT hates more, like fracking?
9
NY really need to draw a line in the sand and immediately switch to renewable power sources, like wind and solar. Continuing to use natural gas is just perpetuating an old paradigm. Shut down the pipelines now! Oh yeah...that won't work.
1
Why is there no mention of Ms. Gore being the daughter of Al and Tipper Gore? This is relevant for two reasons: 1) so readers are aware of the extent to which children of powerful people get plum jobs in the public and non-profit sectors; 2) to remind readers of the fact that this anti-gas article is written by the daughter of a couple who reside in a 20 room mansion, plus pool house, that consumes more natural gas and electricity in one month, than the average household uses in an entire year.
1
It is better to use our own natural gas than import oil from OPEC.
1
Virginia is facing a similar crisis. Currently, there are 3 pipeline projects planned to cross Virginia from the West Virginia fracking fields. Each pipeline is headed to the eastern side of the state, for potential shipping overseas. FERC has refused to review the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects or the necessity for all three. People will have their land scarred and taken, and their drinking water and safety jeopardized for a private pipeline to transport fossil fuels for private profit and export. FERC, the EPA and the White House should step up and look at the need for so many pipelines and their actual environmental impact.
4
Let's note the important point here: the exportation of natural gas. The ban is lifted. Proposed pipeline projects appear like moles in rockless soil. More fracking will then be justified by expanded pipeline capacity. And nobody benefits except the energy corporations. So what's new?
1
Senator Hillary?
45 fossil fuel lobbyists flat out Super Pac Mrs. Clinton?
What sayest thou?
45 fossil fuel lobbyists flat out Super Pac Mrs. Clinton?
What sayest thou?
2
Mr. Gore--This is an important story to let America know about. Thank you for writing it and thank you NYT for publishing it.
2
I agree that the notion that natural gas can be a "bridge" to renewable resources has been discredited. That's why it was so disappointing to hear Hillary Clinton using this misleading metaphor during the debate in NY. It seems that Sec. Clinton did not do her research on this issue, even though she was speaking in a state where thousands of us have done our research.
Local environmental damage due to fracked gas wells and their related infrastructure, methane leakage, and the "locking-in" of fossil fuel use that will occur as more and more money is poured into pipelines and compressor stations make shale gas a gangplank, not a bridge. Sen Sanders is the only candidate in the race who understands this.
Local environmental damage due to fracked gas wells and their related infrastructure, methane leakage, and the "locking-in" of fossil fuel use that will occur as more and more money is poured into pipelines and compressor stations make shale gas a gangplank, not a bridge. Sen Sanders is the only candidate in the race who understands this.
74
There is no bridge, until and unless we have economic ways of storing electricity we will require a balance system. Gas replaces coal and nuclear to a certain extent. I bet neither you or Sanders have any understanding of how the grid works today or how it might be improved and what costs and benefits such improvements might make.
1
Which side of this debate would you think the shill for corporations and Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, would take? She talks out of both sides of her very well having practiced it the majority of her political life.
1
Mary, we should be tired of people perpetuating lies they hear from the powerbrokers who control the global community, trade, cash flow, corporations, politicians, government agencies, education, the media and the legal system. Because of this most people are not as educated or as smart as they think, even those from NY. Most Americans still believe in the propaganda that “oil is a fossil fuel”.
The fossil fuels hypothesis is a lie initiated out of greed and perpetuated out of corruption. During the past forty years, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum was proven and put into practice. It has established that petroleum is a primordial material (inorganic not organic from fossils) erupted from great depth. NASA exploration says that hydrocarbons are the fourth most abundant substance in or solar system and the known universe.
Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar farms or white elephants needed.
I know there are those that so deceived that they don't know it. Don't forget that when the truth finally comes out that how people denied it and continued to believe and parrot lies.
The fossil fuels hypothesis is a lie initiated out of greed and perpetuated out of corruption. During the past forty years, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum was proven and put into practice. It has established that petroleum is a primordial material (inorganic not organic from fossils) erupted from great depth. NASA exploration says that hydrocarbons are the fourth most abundant substance in or solar system and the known universe.
Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar farms or white elephants needed.
I know there are those that so deceived that they don't know it. Don't forget that when the truth finally comes out that how people denied it and continued to believe and parrot lies.
1
Destroying the Earth's entire ecology by burning fossil fuels on a scale which over-heats the global atmosphere is of such disasterously monstrous enormity that no punishment can fit that crime.
The hidiously insideous fraud is that "the economy" cannot convert immediately and entirely to sustainable, non-damaging alternatives.
We can do it, and we must do it.
We must insist: no coal mining, no oil drilling, no gas fracking, no nukes.
Barry Commoner wisely asserted that energy, environment, and economy were inextricably connected in a closing circle that cannot be ignored or abused, except at our peril.
“Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”
~ Wendell Berry
The hidiously insideous fraud is that "the economy" cannot convert immediately and entirely to sustainable, non-damaging alternatives.
We can do it, and we must do it.
We must insist: no coal mining, no oil drilling, no gas fracking, no nukes.
Barry Commoner wisely asserted that energy, environment, and economy were inextricably connected in a closing circle that cannot be ignored or abused, except at our peril.
“Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”
~ Wendell Berry
1
Stopping interstate pipelines is no easy task. Problem #1, FERC, or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is an insular agency and has been corrupted by corporate interests. They just won't listen to citizen comments, although they pretend to do on their web site. Combine that with Federal eminent domain laws that override the states, (to the point of allowing corporations to take your land for their private enterprise profit), and you can see why FERC doesn't listen - they don't have to.
Furthermore, there isn't even Global Warming criteria during consideration of new pipelines, but there should be.
It's one thing to state that we need to address Global Warming, but the Federal Government, first and foremost FERC, are completely tone deaf to the issue.
At the very least, FERC commissioners must be replaced Global warming activists. Further, we must stop any new gas pipelines, period, if we are to save the planet. We also need to eliminate the Federal override of state eminent domain laws.
It turns out, fracked natural gas is a lot dirtier than coal. It burns cleaner, but gas losses into the atmosphere are usually way above the 3% (coal) threshold. CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Natural gas isn't all that cheap either. It can generate electricity at 8 c/kwH, but Solar does it for 5 c/kwH.
We should not be putting in an expensive fuel that damages the environment. Instead, we need to stop this fossil fuel madness and move immediately to solar.
Furthermore, there isn't even Global Warming criteria during consideration of new pipelines, but there should be.
It's one thing to state that we need to address Global Warming, but the Federal Government, first and foremost FERC, are completely tone deaf to the issue.
At the very least, FERC commissioners must be replaced Global warming activists. Further, we must stop any new gas pipelines, period, if we are to save the planet. We also need to eliminate the Federal override of state eminent domain laws.
It turns out, fracked natural gas is a lot dirtier than coal. It burns cleaner, but gas losses into the atmosphere are usually way above the 3% (coal) threshold. CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Natural gas isn't all that cheap either. It can generate electricity at 8 c/kwH, but Solar does it for 5 c/kwH.
We should not be putting in an expensive fuel that damages the environment. Instead, we need to stop this fossil fuel madness and move immediately to solar.
2
No we should not be building pipelines to New England to transport the fuel of the past, natural gas, to be burned where alternatives are already available. At least if you believe that we should work toward goals set in Paris or not tear up property that is best left alone.
Let's keep this simple. For clarification write to me.
The best model for a future New England comes from these sources: Cornell Science Center on Roosevelt Island, Champlain and Saint Michaels Colleges in Burlington VT, Milbury MA, and Sweden.
On Roosevelt Island the solar system will provide part of the electricity to run the Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump System (GSG), the best renewable energy system for heating-cooling. The Vermont colleges show GHG working on a fairly large scale. Milbury MA provides a small-scale view of the use of solid waste to generate electricity. Sweden provides large scale examples of all the technologies named,using them to already be furthest along towards a fossil-free future.
All but one replier to me in my many comments on GSG does not understand how GSG works so ask me. Leave the landscape as free of pipelines as much as possible. Realize that the fossil-fuel age must end. And ask PBS to show the new Norwegian TV series “Ockupation” about a future Norway when it shuts down fossil-fuel production.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com (soon to be updated!)
Dual citizen USA-SE headed west to a house heated by a heat pump
Let's keep this simple. For clarification write to me.
The best model for a future New England comes from these sources: Cornell Science Center on Roosevelt Island, Champlain and Saint Michaels Colleges in Burlington VT, Milbury MA, and Sweden.
On Roosevelt Island the solar system will provide part of the electricity to run the Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump System (GSG), the best renewable energy system for heating-cooling. The Vermont colleges show GHG working on a fairly large scale. Milbury MA provides a small-scale view of the use of solid waste to generate electricity. Sweden provides large scale examples of all the technologies named,using them to already be furthest along towards a fossil-free future.
All but one replier to me in my many comments on GSG does not understand how GSG works so ask me. Leave the landscape as free of pipelines as much as possible. Realize that the fossil-fuel age must end. And ask PBS to show the new Norwegian TV series “Ockupation” about a future Norway when it shuts down fossil-fuel production.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com (soon to be updated!)
Dual citizen USA-SE headed west to a house heated by a heat pump
4
@ Myself-Footnote 1 Cornell Science Center is described by Cornell as a completely thought-out Center designed to use renewable energy sources as completely as possible. In the original reports by the Times perhaps 3 years ago the Times consistenty misreported the Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pumpsystem referring readers to Iceland style geothermal. I was never able to get them to correct those errors. To the best of my knowledge Cornell does not yet provide a full description of all the systems that are being built.
1
Fracking oil leaks have caused unimaginable problems that we seldom hear about because of gag settlements.
Fracking is dangerous on so many levels and any one educated on what it is, and what it does to get the product out of the ground would understand that this is a dangerous folly.
Politicians supporting fracking are the same kind of mind set that has given us Flint, Michigan.
And Flint's state government won't help out immediately because then Everybody will want help. They'll just have to wait for the budget session in May.
In May.
People still have to go to fire houses for drinking water, bathing water because the State, who created the problem, won't deliver clean water to the houses where the State destroyed the drinking water.
So, if fracking goes wrong, whose going to help out the people?
Flint, Michigan types?
The ones the creates the man made disasterd in the first place?
Fracking.
Oh, won't we all be 'shocked' "SHOCKED" when fracking causes a huge, predicable, avoidable disaster.
The only people not going to fire houses for water in the next man-made disasters will be those in limousines.
Oh, like I'm wrong.
Fracking is dangerous on so many levels and any one educated on what it is, and what it does to get the product out of the ground would understand that this is a dangerous folly.
Politicians supporting fracking are the same kind of mind set that has given us Flint, Michigan.
And Flint's state government won't help out immediately because then Everybody will want help. They'll just have to wait for the budget session in May.
In May.
People still have to go to fire houses for drinking water, bathing water because the State, who created the problem, won't deliver clean water to the houses where the State destroyed the drinking water.
So, if fracking goes wrong, whose going to help out the people?
Flint, Michigan types?
The ones the creates the man made disasterd in the first place?
Fracking.
Oh, won't we all be 'shocked' "SHOCKED" when fracking causes a huge, predicable, avoidable disaster.
The only people not going to fire houses for water in the next man-made disasters will be those in limousines.
Oh, like I'm wrong.
2
Several years ago I attended a gathering of institutional investors on the subject of fracking and the featured speaker, a renowned expert, told us in short that the problem of so-called "fugitive methane" leaking from fracking wells was not being controlled and there appeared to be no real effort to control it unless you count empty promises.
This speaker was from the industry; one of the premier well drilling experts in the world, and worked for a company that does extensive drilling in the Texas/Oklahoma area. He explained that a previous gas price bust had retired a full generation of people who know how to drill wells properly, and that this shortage of expertise was especially acute in the NY/Penn fracking rush involving the Marcellus Shale.
I'll never forget the way he described the problem - paraphrasing here: "There are people on the Marcellus who were working in Walmart last week. This week they're drilling wells."
My conclusion: Industry self-policing is a chimera. Responsible well drilling will not happen even though the cost per well is low. And until there is a far stronger regulatory eye on fracking, we're going to get far more methane - and FAR less climate benefit from natural gas - than the industry ever promises.
This speaker was from the industry; one of the premier well drilling experts in the world, and worked for a company that does extensive drilling in the Texas/Oklahoma area. He explained that a previous gas price bust had retired a full generation of people who know how to drill wells properly, and that this shortage of expertise was especially acute in the NY/Penn fracking rush involving the Marcellus Shale.
I'll never forget the way he described the problem - paraphrasing here: "There are people on the Marcellus who were working in Walmart last week. This week they're drilling wells."
My conclusion: Industry self-policing is a chimera. Responsible well drilling will not happen even though the cost per well is low. And until there is a far stronger regulatory eye on fracking, we're going to get far more methane - and FAR less climate benefit from natural gas - than the industry ever promises.
84
Self policing by industry, invented as "self-inspection" in the food industry, has always been subject to frequent, sometimes serious failures, and sick or poisoned consumers,
I saw this when I worked in the dairy industry. Do you think we should empty this tank of milk into the garbage because its temperature was too high? or just sell it anyway? Maybe nobody will get sick--and it would cost us thousands of dollars to discard it.??
I saw this when I worked in the dairy industry. Do you think we should empty this tank of milk into the garbage because its temperature was too high? or just sell it anyway? Maybe nobody will get sick--and it would cost us thousands of dollars to discard it.??
I have been a working-in-the-trenches climate scientist for most of my life, starting on it in the mid-70s when it wasn't fashionable. I care deeply about restraining CO2 and methane emissions, and some other rarer gases that mankind is doing a better job of cutting back.
Nonetheless, playing pipeline whack-a-mole against individual natural-gas pipelines on the basis of climate-change concerns is not justified, and indeed likely a pretext.
Minimizing direct environmental damage of this pipeline is an issue -- only permitting it if it uses best construction practices, reducing leakage, minimize damages to streams (via drilling under them vs trenching) ... etc all of this is prudent and in the public interest.
But simply "no pipelines" is not, and cannot be justified by our climate concerns.
Two problems need to be understood and answered in this matter: if not this natural gas, how else will the energy be delivered/produced?
A subtle corollary of this is cities: they are never self-sufficient in resources from within their boundaries, energy particularly. Is your demand equivalent to "no cities?"
It is now proven that renewable energy CAN meet our needs, both technically and at reasonable price, BUT ...there are always tradeoffs. And one of the obvious prices of the switch to renewables is that we must accept the need for long-distance transmission, electrical or chemical.
Are you going to NIMBY the renewables and their transmission too?
Nonetheless, playing pipeline whack-a-mole against individual natural-gas pipelines on the basis of climate-change concerns is not justified, and indeed likely a pretext.
Minimizing direct environmental damage of this pipeline is an issue -- only permitting it if it uses best construction practices, reducing leakage, minimize damages to streams (via drilling under them vs trenching) ... etc all of this is prudent and in the public interest.
But simply "no pipelines" is not, and cannot be justified by our climate concerns.
Two problems need to be understood and answered in this matter: if not this natural gas, how else will the energy be delivered/produced?
A subtle corollary of this is cities: they are never self-sufficient in resources from within their boundaries, energy particularly. Is your demand equivalent to "no cities?"
It is now proven that renewable energy CAN meet our needs, both technically and at reasonable price, BUT ...there are always tradeoffs. And one of the obvious prices of the switch to renewables is that we must accept the need for long-distance transmission, electrical or chemical.
Are you going to NIMBY the renewables and their transmission too?
59
Great points, and remember first the grid must be balanced between production and consumption. Storage is very expensive currently so our grid needs to adapt to being efficient. That will cost a lot of money.
Dr. Harrison is right; we all have limited perspective and miss the difficulties and tradeoffs.
But here's the problem; with our current Republican stranglehold on decision making, the chance of proper oversight rather than slash and burn, make a profit quick and leave the mess behind, in those who run these things, is limited.
But here's the problem; with our current Republican stranglehold on decision making, the chance of proper oversight rather than slash and burn, make a profit quick and leave the mess behind, in those who run these things, is limited.
1
It is nowhere proven that renewable energy can meet our needs - please present a reference that proves such.
Germany, which has gone head-first into renewables, has invented a new phrase: Energy Poverty, which represents the fact that the cost of energy generated by renewables in that country is beyond the reach of the poor.
Nuclear power is the only clean power source that delivers proven capacity to meet our needs for the next 1,000 years - yet environmentalists continually denounce it. Hydro power, less reliable than nuclear, can also deliver to meet more of our needs than renewables - yet again, environmentalists continually denounce it.
The Vostok ice cores and the Greenland ice cores both demonstrate that you cannot judge "climate" in terms of what happens over 30 years, or 50 years, or 200 years. Yet "climate scientists" continue to claim that a catastrophe is upon us, even though none of their models correctly predicts what happened in the past. A real Scientist knows that if your theory does not fit the facts of the past, you have to throw it away. Yet "climate scientists" seem to spend more energy and effort to cover up the past or pretend it didn't happen.
"Climate Science" = "Lysenkoism". Look it up.
Germany, which has gone head-first into renewables, has invented a new phrase: Energy Poverty, which represents the fact that the cost of energy generated by renewables in that country is beyond the reach of the poor.
Nuclear power is the only clean power source that delivers proven capacity to meet our needs for the next 1,000 years - yet environmentalists continually denounce it. Hydro power, less reliable than nuclear, can also deliver to meet more of our needs than renewables - yet again, environmentalists continually denounce it.
The Vostok ice cores and the Greenland ice cores both demonstrate that you cannot judge "climate" in terms of what happens over 30 years, or 50 years, or 200 years. Yet "climate scientists" continue to claim that a catastrophe is upon us, even though none of their models correctly predicts what happened in the past. A real Scientist knows that if your theory does not fit the facts of the past, you have to throw it away. Yet "climate scientists" seem to spend more energy and effort to cover up the past or pretend it didn't happen.
"Climate Science" = "Lysenkoism". Look it up.
It is painful to even imagine murdering three-quarters of a million trees.
1
THE MATH Does not compute for building gas pipelines that destroy much of the ground cover that protects regions from flooding and rapid soil erosion that contribute to accelerated global climate change--specifically warming. That is if there were a rational carbon tax that would level the playing field between fossil fuels and sustainable energy sources. There are many examples around the world that show the devastating effects of the erosion of top soil. One prime example is Haiti, where the wooded hills have been stripped of wood, leaving the soil vulnerable to being washed away due to the lack of tree and other roots to hold it in place. The problem there has grown to catastrophic proportions. The last thing that we need in the US is an increase in flooding that we can prevent. Anything that we can do to prevent the accelerated melting of the polar ice caps and rise of sea levels will protect against coastal flooding that is already beginning to occur in North Carolina and Florida as well as elsewhere. It is far more cost-effective to accelerate the use of off-the-shelf technologies to minimize global climate change, such as cars that get 50 mpg, LED light bulbs, retrofitting older buildings and using new construction standards to comply with energy efficiency. Otherwise what we will leave our children and grandchildren will be a world with many of the great cities underwater, displacing millions of people and a shift north of arable lands displacing even more.
2
Pipelines do temporarily disrupt ground cover. But the soil will be replaced and seeds planted. You need to find another argument.
1
It has been a long time since there has been a way to generate or deliver energy within the State of New York that the NYT has approved of. Electricity is fine as long as it's generated in Canada even Nuclear Electricity! Gas is alright as long as it"s propane gas delivered by a truck and then there those who heat their homes with the bodies of dead trees! That too is just fine because it's "natural" as beavers have cut down trees for millions of years.
If Methane is the problem! There are almost 700,000 dary cows in the State of New York! Each of these "environmental assassins" emits more than 200 pounds of methane per year! That's more than 70,000 tons of methane each year or almost the equivalent to the amount leaked by the massive Porter Ranch gas leak in Los Angeles year after year. That said the NYT has little to say about cows and even runs advertising for milk and cheese!
At some point one could hope that the protectors of New York and the Earth would realize that the ever increasing number of people is the Earth's real problem. Until that day all of the rest is just window dressing!
If Methane is the problem! There are almost 700,000 dary cows in the State of New York! Each of these "environmental assassins" emits more than 200 pounds of methane per year! That's more than 70,000 tons of methane each year or almost the equivalent to the amount leaked by the massive Porter Ranch gas leak in Los Angeles year after year. That said the NYT has little to say about cows and even runs advertising for milk and cheese!
At some point one could hope that the protectors of New York and the Earth would realize that the ever increasing number of people is the Earth's real problem. Until that day all of the rest is just window dressing!
3
The reality is that natural gas is the bridge to greener energy sources. Green energy sources are a long ways from providing constant and affordable energy, perhaps decades. Until then, burning natural gas, which emits less carbon than oil or coal, is the green choice.
9
I fault the drilling companies in Pennsylvania for their greed— they have successfully fought off almost all state and local regulation and managed to evade severance taxes. But natural gas is needed for the foreseeable future, and millions of poorer urban homes depend on it for heat and cooking. Cheap energy is a real and desperate need for those people, unlike others, likeMs. Gore's parents, who own (as reported in the NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/fashion/the-end-of-the-line.html) huge homes with annual energy bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. Everyone should be able to heat their home. The focus of people like Gore should be on regulation, not prohibition for those who not be able to afford to heat their homes. Getting out to vote in off year elections when Pennsylvania elects its representatives would be a start.
I live near, and every weekend ride a bike in, an area through which this pipeline will go. There are several other pipelines and underground cables in the general area— one pipeline went through a massive replacement job a few years ago, and less than a year after that happened, but for the signs warning where the pipeline, is, you cannot tell it is there. Many of the homes in the area sporting anti-pipeline signs have natural gas hook-ups. The side effects of fracking can be solved. Technology and laws requiring companies to follow them is the answer, not a mindless and total ban badly hurting those less fortunate than Ms. Gore.
I live near, and every weekend ride a bike in, an area through which this pipeline will go. There are several other pipelines and underground cables in the general area— one pipeline went through a massive replacement job a few years ago, and less than a year after that happened, but for the signs warning where the pipeline, is, you cannot tell it is there. Many of the homes in the area sporting anti-pipeline signs have natural gas hook-ups. The side effects of fracking can be solved. Technology and laws requiring companies to follow them is the answer, not a mindless and total ban badly hurting those less fortunate than Ms. Gore.
4
It takes 2.8 acres of cleared land to produce 1Gwh from solar panels per year.
Translated that means it requires 32 acres of cleared land to provide electricity to 1,000 homes.
A town of 12-14 thousand people in the Northeast has between 4,500 to 5,000 homes. So that is 150 to 160 acres of cleared land, that is probably now a forest.
That is a lot more than a few hundred maple trees, and it requires all species of trees, shrubs, and anything that interferes with the panels.
Pipelines can be removed just as easily as they are installed. Once the tree are clear cut, they are gone.
I find it very ironic that trees, which live on CO2 and process it into oxygen are sacrificed to fulfill zealot greenies "feel-good" fantasy.
I think I can wait for the flux capacitor, until then we need to use what we got.
Translated that means it requires 32 acres of cleared land to provide electricity to 1,000 homes.
A town of 12-14 thousand people in the Northeast has between 4,500 to 5,000 homes. So that is 150 to 160 acres of cleared land, that is probably now a forest.
That is a lot more than a few hundred maple trees, and it requires all species of trees, shrubs, and anything that interferes with the panels.
Pipelines can be removed just as easily as they are installed. Once the tree are clear cut, they are gone.
I find it very ironic that trees, which live on CO2 and process it into oxygen are sacrificed to fulfill zealot greenies "feel-good" fantasy.
I think I can wait for the flux capacitor, until then we need to use what we got.
6
Just like my house, buildings have roofs for solar panels. No need to destroy forests and cover the land with panels. We just need government to change their view and allow substantial subsidies for individuals to invest in their future and the future of the planet.
1
Karenna Gore, please answer this question:
How would home owners in New England economically and "more environmentally friendly " heat their homes in the winter months if the Constitution Pipeline is not built?
Do the continue to burn heating oil to stay warm ? Geo thermal technologies are not economically viable and "solar" is not fully acceptable (many groups who appear to be environmentally friendly oppose seeing solar panels in many areas) and possibly viable to heat homes.
So the although your intentions are good, opposing just a matter without a viable alternative plan, which impacts millions of people is very short sighted and at times just pie in the sky...
How would home owners in New England economically and "more environmentally friendly " heat their homes in the winter months if the Constitution Pipeline is not built?
Do the continue to burn heating oil to stay warm ? Geo thermal technologies are not economically viable and "solar" is not fully acceptable (many groups who appear to be environmentally friendly oppose seeing solar panels in many areas) and possibly viable to heat homes.
So the although your intentions are good, opposing just a matter without a viable alternative plan, which impacts millions of people is very short sighted and at times just pie in the sky...
7
I wonder if the authors point is to stop fracking so that we could use more coal to generate the power we need? Or is she in favor of paying much more for electricity from renewables. Maybe, she believes the benefits of low cost fracked natural gas that help help the poor with home heating and low cost power, is not important saving the planet is.
I believe we must use all forms of energy, keep energy prices low, but work diligently to develop better energy resources including nuclear and fusion to ensure future energy supplies.
I believe we must use all forms of energy, keep energy prices low, but work diligently to develop better energy resources including nuclear and fusion to ensure future energy supplies.
10
The federal government--and President Obama--must signal its strong opposition to its agency approval--otherwise the opposition to the XL pipeline only becomes symbolic. The energy with which we commit brutality against the earth should bring no comfort--or warmth or convenience--to us, Canada, or others across the globe.
The bosses still seek to oppress and silence those who resist. The politics of the balance sheet does not bring prosperity; its numbers conceal the face of poverty. Shift the costs of business back to businesses, away from the people. Freedom is higher than profit. The planet was not made to be spent.
The bosses still seek to oppress and silence those who resist. The politics of the balance sheet does not bring prosperity; its numbers conceal the face of poverty. Shift the costs of business back to businesses, away from the people. Freedom is higher than profit. The planet was not made to be spent.
88
No water, no less fe.
No Walter, the planet has, is and will be spent by us humans as long as we exist. The only thing that will stop us is our own demise or our eventual ability to reach other worlds and start the process of pillaging on new terra forms.
As an optimist, I believe we will go on as a species to conquer the universe. Excelsior!
As an optimist, I believe we will go on as a species to conquer the universe. Excelsior!
The federal government has signaled its strong approval of the Constitutional pipeline by approving the project. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement on the project on Oct. 24, 2014, concluding that environmental impacts would be reduced to “less than significant levels” with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures by the company and FERC.
It’s interesting how some make claims of compassion for the regular guy when in truth the values they flog couldn’t be more opposed. Obviously, they couldn’t care less for the common man, whether that disdain manifests as a desire to protect the mating habits of CA smelt over the economic interests of countless farmers or the interests of a few trees over those of the perpetually economically depressed in NY State’s lower-tier and the flinty, hardscrabble parts of PA.
Renewables provide under 15% of the energy consumed in the U.S. It will take at least one and possibly two generations to build out the production and distribution infrastructure to substantially replace carbon from fossil sources at anything LIKE wearable costs. And we’ve already run out of states like Kansas to dedicate to growing corn for biomass. Globally, emerging economies seeking to build middle classes for the first times in their histories aren’t about to sacrifice those efforts because Ms. Gore thinks their energy should be more expensive. Yet here we have a transitional alternative to coal and oil like natural gas from shale that pollutes immensely less, is cheap and abundant and its exploitation would provide work for those who need it … and it’s vilified for no reasons other than it’s technically a carbon source and that it’s become the target of political correctness, like nuclear energy.
The efforts of environmental extremists represent the most regressive taxation on our people imaginable.
Renewables provide under 15% of the energy consumed in the U.S. It will take at least one and possibly two generations to build out the production and distribution infrastructure to substantially replace carbon from fossil sources at anything LIKE wearable costs. And we’ve already run out of states like Kansas to dedicate to growing corn for biomass. Globally, emerging economies seeking to build middle classes for the first times in their histories aren’t about to sacrifice those efforts because Ms. Gore thinks their energy should be more expensive. Yet here we have a transitional alternative to coal and oil like natural gas from shale that pollutes immensely less, is cheap and abundant and its exploitation would provide work for those who need it … and it’s vilified for no reasons other than it’s technically a carbon source and that it’s become the target of political correctness, like nuclear energy.
The efforts of environmental extremists represent the most regressive taxation on our people imaginable.
41
Natural gas as a transitional alternative has been determined to be equally if not more toxic to the environment than coal or oil. The chemicals used to release te natural gas have been seeping into groundwater. There have been increases in earthquakes due to the fracking process. Recent studies have shown that methane in the atmosphere traps heat at a higher rate than traditional fossil fuels. Natural gas is not a viable transitional alernative.
1
Reprice this pipeline accurately. Place a zero-tolerance limit on leaked methane in the pricing. Do a long term projection on the environmental, esthetic and human costs. Then make an accurate - even conservative - projection of what that new sum could accomplish in energy-saving rebuilds, distributed solar and wind power sources. Put the two results side by side. I'm convinced, as an up-to-date student of this issue the pipeline will lose dramatically. It's time to get real on this self-imposed catastrophe.
6
@ RL - RL you do not seem to know much about renewable energy technologies. Growing corn is not so good. My submission hours ago lays out possibilities extensively used elsewhere. It May not appear until comments are closed so you probably won't be able ti show me the error of my ways. Larry
2
How will the planet remember us? Those who have plundered and destroyed? How will those coming manage because of us?
58
once humans are gone, it will be as if we were never here
in a million years or so after our passing, everything we made will be crumbled into dust
in a million years or so after our passing, everything we made will be crumbled into dust
2
The planet will not remember us. In the billions of years of Earth, man may very well turn out to have been a mere blip for tens of thousands of years before we die off. Then it will be just like that TV show, the one that imagines the world with out man as our structures decay. The Earth will keep floating through space - until it is destroyed by an exploding Sun or wayward meteor.
Well, that's comforting at least.
Full accounting of all the costs: so necessary!
Most easily mined fossil fuels are gone; so now we extreme fossil - tar sands, fracking, deepwater, and Arctic, mountaintop removal - all provide a poor energy return on energy invested. Corporations don't want to acknowledge all the incidental costs; cleanup or prevention is costly, and affects the bottom line. But what good is that when we all lose?
Methane leaks, polluted water, and earthquakes are only some of the community's costs. We all lose.
Among other things that bother me, is the poor people, the uncounted people, the suffering neighbors, too poor to fight, to get publicity, for their plight. The communities who sign on, not knowing that their infrastructure will be stretched, their communities trashed, for a boom and bust that privatizes profit and socializes risk.
Building infrastructure assumes future use. This infrastructure should be focusing on developing, storing, and delivering clean renewable energy (*not* corn biofuels or biomass), including geothermal, small hydro, and other lesser known sources, as well as ever more efficient wind and solar. Then there's efficiency. Old traditions mean that even new buildings are not being constructed to save money with efficiency. How silly is that?
The return on lobbying dollars is staggering; over 100:1 in direct and indirect benefits. Dishonesty pays. But some are just naive, misinformed, or uninformed.
It's a shame: they all have families.
Most easily mined fossil fuels are gone; so now we extreme fossil - tar sands, fracking, deepwater, and Arctic, mountaintop removal - all provide a poor energy return on energy invested. Corporations don't want to acknowledge all the incidental costs; cleanup or prevention is costly, and affects the bottom line. But what good is that when we all lose?
Methane leaks, polluted water, and earthquakes are only some of the community's costs. We all lose.
Among other things that bother me, is the poor people, the uncounted people, the suffering neighbors, too poor to fight, to get publicity, for their plight. The communities who sign on, not knowing that their infrastructure will be stretched, their communities trashed, for a boom and bust that privatizes profit and socializes risk.
Building infrastructure assumes future use. This infrastructure should be focusing on developing, storing, and delivering clean renewable energy (*not* corn biofuels or biomass), including geothermal, small hydro, and other lesser known sources, as well as ever more efficient wind and solar. Then there's efficiency. Old traditions mean that even new buildings are not being constructed to save money with efficiency. How silly is that?
The return on lobbying dollars is staggering; over 100:1 in direct and indirect benefits. Dishonesty pays. But some are just naive, misinformed, or uninformed.
It's a shame: they all have families.
119
The costs of continued investments in this type of energy will impact future generations in ways that are much too high to calculate in simple dollars and cents. We are at the tipping point. Let's say no to further destruction of our planet and its climate.
3
@ Susan Anderson - Susan your pointing to full accounting would be the perfect complement to my listing of technologies employable now in New England and NY state. But it has been waitng h for review.
We need a Times article with a full accounting comparuson. Larry
We need a Times article with a full accounting comparuson. Larry
3
@ Susan Susan my comment was just accepted. If the Times would provide a blog for commenters then we could submit a piece combining your views and mine - with Richard Luettgen given a chance to tell us why our information and arguments are wrong.
But the fundamental question is: How can we get the Times to provide is own article looking at one comparison:The full costs of heating 100 homes in Massachusetts with oil as compared to heating the same homes with heat pump technologies.
Larry
But the fundamental question is: How can we get the Times to provide is own article looking at one comparison:The full costs of heating 100 homes in Massachusetts with oil as compared to heating the same homes with heat pump technologies.
Larry
As a renewable energy professional for the last decade (before it was fashionable) I can tell you unequivocally fracking poisons the environment and no amount of regulation fixes that.
The Republicans (all of them) are all in for fracking and to a lesser degree is Hillary Clinton. I'm sorry she is so blind.
Only Bernie Sanders has a one word answer to fracking - No. And Hilllary should follow suit.