It would be unfortunate if the environmental community divided itself by making gas the solution to the coal problem, so we need to carefully explore win-win solutions. However, only those unfamiliar with the energy use, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risks of the toxic chemical laden gas extraction process can point to a sunshine-y future with natural gas, as many do, in a host of recent blogs and articles that either subtly or overtly aim to debunk the Oscar-nominated film, Gasland, and solve the coal problem by promoting the use of gas.
As an article published by Abrahm Lustgarten in ProPublica reveals, "methane, the primary component of natural gas and among the more potent greenhouse gases, has far more of an effect on climate change than carbon dioxide." Rather than view gas as an end product, it's entire lifestyle from extraction to transport to production to use needs to be considered for emissions, environmental damage, health risk, and costs. A ProPublica analysis details why the climate benefits of natural gas may be overstated.
I've been covering this issue on HuffPost since 2009, and the following three links cover a range of issues, including addressing safety issues, and shifting both burden of proof, and the responsibility for addressing damage from communities and individuals to the industry:
Leading engineer and consultant to industry on what states need to do to regulate and provide oversight.
My current blog on Mark Ruffalo and Josh Fox visit to Washington with an overview of recommendations to the president and Congress.
Complete text of recommendations proffered by Josh Fox.
Those who envisage a clean future with gas would do well to assess the gas and oil industry's readiness to cooperate. The gas and oil industry has thus far resisted any regulations that would cut into the bottom line. Instead it blankets itself in PR spin, rather than redress the range of problems detailed above.
If informed by "he said" vs. "she said" reporting, one might believe certain media reports, ranging from 60 Minutes to the New York Times, in which industry regularly proclaims horizontal hydraulic fracturing 'safe,' citing decades of problem-free use.
However the current process, deploying more than 500 toxic chemicals, is relatively recent, brought into wide use, only following the passage of the 2005 Energy Bill, with the Halliburton Loophole, which exempted this process from EPA oversight. Therefore the "decades of safe use" contention confuses apples with oranges by referring to a different form of drilling.
Another example of industry compliance: Ignoring permit requirements for the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluids, companies injected millions of gallons of diesel fuel to frack sites in 19 states.
In Pennsylvania, where fracking has preceded unimpeded, the state homeland security department violated first amendment rights by putting on a terrorist "watch list" homeowners who attended public meetings, or who went to see the film, Gasland. More on that.
When Gasland was nominated for the Academy Award, Energy in Depth, a purported Mom and Pop group wrote the Academy to debunk the film. As detailed in a current Huffington blog, Energy in Depth is a gas and oil industry front organization. Josh Fox provides point by point responses to their critique here.
With fracking given carte blanche in Pennsylvania, residents in the neighboring state of New York (where companies now press to begin drilling) can readily see that the health, environmental, and economic risks don't end with the film's depictions. Spills, explosions, and illegal dumping of hazardous, radio-active waste are nearly routine occurrences, with more accounts of oversight, and harm than one blog or one film could detail.
Currently at risk are approximately 15 million Americans in both rural and major urban areas whose water supply comes from the Delaware River, named the "most endangered river" by American Rivers. The drilling of test wells in the river basin is slated to begin there shortly. More background here.
Given the current legislative environment, which acts within a context of influence by involved industries, in proposing gas as a solution, environmentally aware citizens and groups must ask: What's the feasibility of putting into place the necessary studies and other safety measures?
Up until now, the gas companies have externalized their costs, and covered there tracks with PR. Is there sufficient leverage to persuade them to change? Coal is unsustainable. But let's not solve one problem and create another. If any group proposing gas as a solution to the coal has the leverage to bring these industries to the table, many people would like to know about it.
For health and environmental news, action, and radio, sign up at: www.healthjournalistblog.com
Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlisonRoseLevy
Going from burning to not burning shouldn't happen overnight. But how many nights should it be? Gas now makes sense. Gas now with poisoned water doesn't.
Keep it simple, one step at a time.
American Indian quote:
"We do not inherit the earth,
we borrow it from our children."
For those Americans who believe that this natural gas industry is the answer to our energy needs, jobs and boost in economy, I invite you to come to Pennsylvania and see for yourself. We are living in Gasland, right here, right now. I am trying my best, the decision makers who keep telling us "this is good for PA and we must get it right" Well guess what people, It's not right. It's a nightmare I can't seem to wake up from. I can't wrap my brain around it.
Methane is indeed a far more potent green house gas than CO2, but burning methane yields CO2, and any attempts to use natural gas would be self-defeating if they poured it into the atmosphere instead.
Fracking seems to very obviously be a disastrous way to mine for natural gas.
The fist one (A) is the site as see with the naked eye.
The second one (B) is shot with a FLIR and shows the emissions that you can not normally see.
The third (C) is the FLIR with the Doppler color switched on.
Please watch all three.
You may have to copy/paste into your URL if the entire link is not highlighted.
(A) http://www.youtube.com/user/balckbart0930#p/u/0/FDa_eMU-sU8
(B) http://www.youtube.com/user/balckbart0930#p/u/1/wjWaVoTPZqc
(C) http://www.youtube.com/user/balckbart0930#p/u/2/sEoN-3A-zQ4
http://63.134.196.109/documents/10oct21_ingraffea_otsego_october_2010.ppt
If you look at end-to-end coal, you also get natural gas released from seams during mining. US-based fracked gas is not really linked to coal replacement in any meaningful way.
The environmental impact on emissions of producing domestic gas seems to be far too small to justify the local environmental impact from the extraction process.
As for electric cars I find my short legged CNG Honda 180 miles between fill ups inconvenient as heck but I drive it because of its low emissions compare to even hybrids!
Yes, "Natural gas" should be used, but not Fracked gas.
If money was there to be made it would be happening.
When I can buy this technology at reasonable cost and it saves me money right away I'll be a believer.
Until then its just a lot of typing on the internet.
People want simple, bumper-sticker slogans? Here's one: Think globally, install locally. But please, let's not just give Big Energy a pass because they are killing wilderness, gobbling up our money and stealing land from rural people for "industrial solar" as if that is somehow acceptable. it's not, especially because unlike coal, oil and nukes, SOLAR can more efficiently and affordably be produced in the built environment than in the wilderness (after transmission costs and losses).
Time to end the industry greenwashing and get serious. Neither gas nor Industrial Solar are real solutions. They are both profiteering, destructive Big Energy scams. Time to implement a feed in tariff and get our PACE loans back so WE can clean up the atmosphere without Chevron's dubious "help."
There are only a million reasons why this is wrong, but it is taking FOREVER to get it reversed! Several states are suing and a few anemic bills are rotting in the legislature but because WE don't have a lobby and Big Energy does, they are all just fine with us not having the means to conserve energy or produce our own. The less access to efficiency retrofit and solar panel money, the more money and control for them!
Even SunRun, the rooftop solar leasing company, lobbied hard to make sure that we were not allowed to compete with them by having access to PACE loans, which is why I never support them, either.
So, call up your congressman and senator and demand that FHA retract their extortion, and get your municipality to issue bonds in the meantime - the program is risk-free, so they should not be worried about it (with first lien), plus it will create jobs and improve property values and save money that will be spent there!
See Green Light and "Cold Fusion" at www.aesopinstitute.org for an overview of an unpublicized National Security threat that can accelerate cost-competitive, decentralized, renewable energy development.
The Energy Catalyzer invented by Andrea Rossi appears to be the first Black Swan to surface. It is called Cold Fusion, but the inventor denies that is accurate.
He demonstrated a 10 kW thermal Catalyzer last month. These modules are in production. 100 of them will be assembled to create a 1 Megawatt thermal Catalyzer in Athens, Greece in October.
An interview with Rossi and a definition of a Black Swan energy event will be found in the "Cold Fusion" material, along with a few other interesting articles.
Coal and natural gas may find they cannot compete with Black Swan innovations that are currently in prototype.
A few of the others might supersede oil.
One can see the complexity of this issue makes it easier to indulge in name calling rather than address these issues.