Chris Tucker And Kate Sinding Debate Natural Gas (VIDEO)

UPDATE: Scroll down for highlights from the debate, edited by HuffPost's Ben Craw, with the full exchange available below that.

Natural gas is a topic that has been getting tons of media attention -- here at HuffPost Green we've featured dozens of stories on concerns about fracking (the controversial drilling method), the natural gas boom here in the U.S. and a few frightening videos of people lighting their tap water on fire. But as our energy demands increase, the world hunts for reliable, non-carbon producing sources of power, and there's a lot people don't know or understand about natural gas.

That's why in November we're hosting a debate to help illuminate the issue of natural gas, and get to the bottom of a truly burning question: is it really green?

We're inviting two experts on the topic of "Fracking," the controversial method of natural gas extraction. Kate Sinding is Senior Attorney and Deputy Director of the New York Urban Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and has been closely following the issues and concerns around natural gas in the New York state area and beyond.

Chris Tucker representing a segment of the industry as the communications director for Energy In Depth, which is an a education and outreach initiative by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). He will be arguing that natural gas has an important place in our energy future and that extraction can be done safely.

This debate will take place on November 17th at 11 AM EST. Do YOU have questions for our experts about natural gas? Click the participate button below or ask us live here or on twitter during our debate.

WATCH Highlights:

WATCH Full Debate:

(Ed note -- we had to change one of the original debaters due to scheduling conflicts.)

Comments

[Damian Micale]

03:00 AM on 12/04/2010

Chris Tucker is working for the devil. He is promoting the further destruction of the environment and our planet at a time of environmental crisis.

And his justification of this is "it creates jobs" FFUUUU there are more important things than
jobs

[Damian Micale]

02:53 AM on 12/04/2010

Forget about "natural" gas, god its so miss leading. Its a dangerous polluting method of getting energy.

The solution to pollution is HEMP, the marijuana plant can also be used to make fuel and
energy.

Until is legal we will continue to have to pollute. Look it up its 100% true.

[bluejane]

05:53 PM on 12/03/2010

Hopefully somebody mentioned in comments above that a big piece missing in this debate would counter the "greenwashing" of natural gas to portray NG as so clean it's nearly green when in fact the methane leakage and multiple ventings (methane far more potent than CO2 in worsening greenhouse effect) in the course of the whole shale gas lifecycle from extraction through shipping and pipelining to end use make NG nearly as "dirty" as coal if not far dirtier than coal in its greenhouse footprint, thus worsening global warming and climate change. This is a bridge to nowhere save climate disaster. See the preliminary report of Prof. Robert Howarth and his team at Cornell which is being peer-reviewed at this moment, due out in final form in a few weeks.
Bottom line so far per Howarth:
"We urge caution in viewing natural gas as good fuel choice for the future. Using the best available science, we conclude that natural gas is no better than coal and may in fact be worse than coal in terms of its greenhouse gas footprint when evaluated over the time course of the next several decades."
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20emissions%20from%20Marcellus%20--%20November%202010.pdf

[OkieMon]

11:09 AM on 11/27/2010

these fossil fuel fas*cists (FFF) have blocked energy alternatives at every corner includding ripping the solar panesl off the whitehouse in 1980....and their cries now that there are no alternatives? can you spell HYPOCRITES ????

[OkieMon]

11:03 AM on 11/27/2010

to add to the gas companies wows now a university of buffalo study has concluded that drilling in the marcellus in NY and PA brings up uranium with the drill cuttings.....maybe these companies can use it in breeder reactions to make plutonium for more bombs.....just what we need.....go solar/hydroelectric/wind/geothermal and hydrogen/lithium for energy storage

[rikster]

02:07 PM on 11/26/2010

I guess this has nothing to do with flatulence...

[OkieMon]

11:11 AM on 11/27/2010

has every thing to do the fat cats far*ting form their overstuffing on their greed baby greed diets......

[Overtone]

02:22 PM on 11/25/2010

Better alternatives are on the horizon and can be accelerated.

An 11 year sunspot cycle has begun. NASA estimates that any one of four anticipated “extreme” solar storms could cause New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle and most of the Eastern U.S., as well as many other metropolitan areas everywhere on the planet, to lose grid electricity, possibly for weeks.

On-site renewable energy has become a wise insurance policy - as well as a practical way for disruptive technologies to start to replace fossil fuel!

See: www.aesopi­­­­­­­­nst­i­t­u­t­e­­.­­o­­rg for an overview - and an outline of possible actions.

Three huge Coronal Mass ejections (CME) have been born so far this year. One came very close last week. Should a strong CME strike Earth's geomagnetic field, NASA estimates wide areas might suffer collapse of the power grid.

Imagine massive blackouts all across the globe lasting for days or weeks.

More than 500 sunspots that could produce a CME are anticipated. NOAA estimates four such “extreme” events are likely during the current 11 year cycle.

In the U.S., NASA estimates a strong geomagnetic storm could cause 130 million people to suffer a long-term shortage of electricity. The cost is estimated to be $1-2 trillion the first year. Roughly the combined price tag, to date, of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

Since this threatens catastrophe all across the world, acceleration of decentralized energy and especially less expensive green energy has become urgent.

[mcmutter]

10:10 AM on 11/25/2010

Fracking will DESTROY our clean groundwater supply .... bad news for the middleclass but great news for our water companies .....

[Truth789]

12:33 AM on 11/24/2010

The truth of the matter is, we HAVE hit Peak Oil. We need an alternative source of fuels. Even once we get off oil to fuel our cars, we are still in danger of oil running out. So many things are made from oil ie tires, paints, plastic...almost everything that makes a car in the first place.

It looks like Ethanol and Hydrogen fuel cells take too much energy to make energy. Solar and Wind would be great and there needs to be more funding for it. The quickest way I guess out of this oil mess is natural gas and burning coal. No they are not clean energy especially coal, that's dirty, but I believe natural gas is better than oil as far as pollution goes. I'm very concerned though that many towns are going to be screwed by the way they are drilling for Natural Gas. We need a serious look at how they are doing this. I think natural gas should be extracted but not at the cost of peoples water turning into fire.

Again, I'm all for clean energy but I'm also practical....and my but instinct says that we seriously need to lower our oil consumption, it is a finite resource and it's running out.

[OkieMon]

11:06 AM on 11/27/2010

peak oil? bs....there is 500 years worth of untapped oil underneath the rapidly melting arctic ice cap alone.....fossil fuels are just toxic waste.....go solar/hydroelectric/wind/geothermal....and hydrogen/lithium for energy storage....

[Patrick Gregston]

11:25 AM on 12/01/2010

The point about the Peak Oil concept is about price- not supply. And the good news is that when the economy gets going, the price of oil is going to take off again. Making alternatives above ground cheaper by comparison is the only way to get incentives for innovation in collecting, converting and transporting clean energy going.

[justin courter]

02:56 PM on 11/23/2010

The way this debate was "moderated" was aggravatingly one-sided. One wonders if Marcus Baram was being paid by a natural gas company to put their destructive practices in the best possible light. He constantly asked Chris Tucker to respond to Kate Sinding's points, but never let her respond to Tucker's points and instead talked over her and gave Chris more opportunities to promote an obviously devastating drilling technique conducted by companies that want to withhold information about the chemicals they are pumping into the ground in large volumes and that have turned up in people's drinking water in every state where they've drilled. This was an abysmally poor job on Marcus's part; one would expect more from the most inexperienced student of journalism.

[ar2ro]

01:07 PM on 11/23/2010

I WOULD NOT ADVISE IN NATURAL GAS DRILLING ANYWHERE!!!!

If you want to see the carnage it causes (and has already been doing in the U.S.A) watch the documentary "Gasland" and tell me if you'd let these companies drill in your neighborhood. Also tell me if you'd drink the water after while you're at it.

[enlightenedgirl]

01:05 PM on 11/23/2010

I had to stop at 15 minutes when Tucker started defending his side with a connection to jobs.  What, we can pollute because we produce jobs?  Really?

Another statement Tucker made that New York, California and Texas are the biggest consumers of natural gas was laughable, all three states have the most population, duh.  These states use a lot so it's OK? How dumb do they think we are?

What the heck are they pumping into the ground?  Why can people light their own faucets?  Why can your neighbor sell his backyard for pumping when it will destroy your only water source?  That's what I want to hear them defend.  Where is T-Boone when you want to ask him something?  He was everywhere a while back selling America a bunch of goods, where is he now that we have questions?

[onalimb]

11:17 AM on 11/23/2010

Why isn't more effort put into making green energy affordable? Also why focus on a bridge from where we are now to clean energy that does not include full focus on alternative sources?
I know we are making some baby steps here and there but it seems to me that if we invested half the time and money into conserving & affordable green energy we all win - well perhaps the current dirty energy people do not win so much but the majority of us would.

[paxatman]

11:13 AM on 11/23/2010

Please do some research HuffPo. I think you will find that Fracking is a production enhancement technique used at some completion operations and at times during the life of a well when production falls off. Calling it a 'drilling method' shows ignorance of the issue. That said, It is true that hydraulically fracturing a formation with tremendous pressures will cause communication from location to location at times and will contaminate other underground sources. It happens all the time. Most oil companies won't frack a well if it is close to one that is currently being drilled because of communication of high over pressures to the well being drilled and causing a blow out. Oil companies have known this since the technique began, but it has always been a 'who gives a ----, as long as we get ours'. The oil business has caused much harm and wars to the people of the world because of that truly republican attitude.

[Vampire Blues]

08:55 AM on 11/23/2010

so two lawyers/pr folks spewing the party line constitutes a debate these days?

get me some engineers and scientists and I will pay attention.

[Alison Rose Levy]

11:28 AM on 11/23/2010

Well then, you will enjoy my Huff blog which is straight from an engineer's mouth about what happens when gas drilling comes to your state. This gives some idea of how little prepared New York is-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/an-engineer-drafts-a-lett_b_762133.html

Alison
sign up for health activism and insight at: www.healthjournalistblog.com

[Vampire Blues]

04:09 PM on 11/23/2010

lol civil and environmental engineering? all her proposals are for her to get more work. she just wants her slice of the pie. and protectionist policies? and discriminatory hiring? and making companies disclose proprietary information?
If you think these things are feasible, I've got a like-new bridge in Tacoma, WA you might want to buy.

Petroleum Engineers. They would know what they are talking about. Or specialist geologists. A whistle blower with the data to back it up.

[grinbr]

12:55 PM on 12/02/2010

I live in the southern tier of upstate NY. It is too true how little people know and are prepared for if/when gas drilling comes, even though the info is readily available. I see the "Friends of Natural Gas" signs everywhere. Would a friend come to your house and poison your drinking water? I think not.

The poor people of northern PA just over the border are going through horrible things. Their drinking water has been badly contaminated in just a few months. They now want to build a pipeline to actually ship water in. Unbelieveable. Its in the paper and news broadcasts nearly every day of just how bad it is in PA, but I still see more and more of those signs popping up all over the place. I don't know what its going to take to wake people up.

I'm terrified because our local government has already sold us down the river too. They put natural gas lease money in the actual budget for next year even though the moratorium isn't up til May 2011. These aren't repubs either, they're dems. Only one who seems to care is Maurice Hinchey (our congressman), but we'll see how long he can keep up the fight. There are powers that be much tougher and more influential than he is.