Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, catapulted global warming into the spotlight and helped bring business and environmental leaders together to reduce fossil fuel dependence.
Now a new documentary film, Gasland, aims to build opposition to natural gas production in the U.S. Recently nominated for an Academy Award, the documentary focuses on the problems of "hydraulic fracturing," commonly called "fracking," a form of natural gas drilling.
That's understandable. When residents of small Colorado towns turn on their faucets, and find that their tap water has caught fire, it can be a little disconcerting, even if -- as the state later concluded -- the problem was naturally occurring methane unrelated to fracking.
Absolutely, natural gas fracking needs to regulated. Many fracking operations are carried out by small operators with little experience and a wild west mentality that leads to problems like those featured in Gasland. To mend those problems, fracking regulations need to do five things:
(1) Require transparency - the public has a right to know exactly what chemicals are used in fracking
(2) Protect groundwater - drinking water should not be compromised by fracking
(3) Protect the air - methane byproducts should be captured, not released
(4) Protect sensitive areas - treasured lands should not be placed at risk
(5) Protect property rights - property owners should not have their legal rights compromised
It is important that we in the environmental community take a smart approach to natural gas. Demonizing it as no better than coal would not only damage the environment, but severely set back our efforts to protect the climate and put a price on carbon.
Here's why.
First, anything that curtails natural gas use right now leads directly to more coal use.
Second, if we take a smart approach to regulating natural gas, we can forge the powerful political coalition we need to win federal action on climate, including a price on carbon - even with a GOP Congress. Right now, the coal sector dominates electricity production in the U.S. So long as it does, electricity will be our major uncontrolled contribution to global warming.
Natural gas producers have an interest in shifting this production away from coal. So do we.
We need to shift the electricity sector to a low carbon future. That means more wind and solar, but in the meantime, more natural gas for the next decade. Much as we might wish otherwise, more development is needed before we can turn the electricity grid over to renewables alone.
Gasland aligns with a very credible narrative, one that folks on the right and left largely resonate with: neither big business nor regulators can be trusted. A New York Times review calls this "maddening." But it's understandable for a popular film designed for a mass audience to appeal to those who are "predisposed to distrust big business and the bureaucrats that regulate it." That would be - hmm - roughly 99% of the American population, I figure.
Unfortunately, if we were to cross natural gas fracking off the list of energy sources, we would suffer a variety of uncomfortable and unintended consequences.
First, we would severely worsen the nation's carbon footprint, by locking the electricity grid into a continued reliance on coal, just at the moment when we are best positioned to break coal's hold.
Second, we would foreclose an excellent opportunity to build a left-right alliance for a price on carbon.
You might not notice it, based on recent Tea Party rhetoric. But there are major forces on the conservative side of the political spectrum who want to put a price on carbon. They don't favor it simply for the positive impacts on carbon pollution. They are often more motivated by the national security and economic prosperity interests.
National security advocates want a price on carbon because it will reduce oil imports from nations they regard as our political enemies, and reduce the power of terrorists. Economic prosperity advocates want a price on carbon because it will help drive innovation and technology development, and serve our long-term economic interests.
They are fighting behind-the-scenes to assure that Tea Party stalwarts don't unwittingly block the GOP from supporting a carbon price just because Al Gore wants them to.
But they will only support a price on carbon if it doesn't come with a major reduction in domestic energy production.
If both coal and natural gas are taken off the table, then the U.S. is left even more reliant on foreign oil. That reduces the basis for conservative support for a price on carbon. And, sorry, a left-only alliance for climate protection has almost no chance of success.
It may take some nose-plugging on the part of some groups, but the environmental community needs to strike a bargain with natural gas: mend it, don't end it. We need to forge an alliance that recognizes natural gas is a bridge fuel, to take us from fossil fuel reliance, to an economy founded on renewables.
Gasland director Josh Fox does a skillful job of demonizing fracking with a Michael Moore-like montage of mysterious chemicals, bleak landscapes, unresponsive industry flacks, and hints of conspiracy involving Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
But natural gas is a key part of America's clean energy and security landscape. This is why President Obama included it as part of his definition of "clean energy" in his 2011 State of the Union address. The U.S. has more recoverable gas than was previously thought, and new drilling technologies have improved both costs and environmental controls.
We need those best practices to be adopted throughout the sector.
Gasland is a powerful film. But this time, we in the environmental community need to face an inconvenient truth: regulation, not demonization, serves our interests best.
Follow Bill Shireman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Future500
On the other hand I feel that intermediate solutions are a distraction from the need to build renewable energy systems. All investment should directly address the need for clean and renewable energy facilities.
Likewise the carbon tax issue does not directly attack the problem, but seems to provide a way to speculate and profit off not spending money on clean energy systems. Many people have legitimate concerns over the carbon tax issue and whether it is a good mechanism for change.
It is imperative that we in the environmental community forge a coalition that can win both better fracking practices and a price on carbon. It will require hard work and strategic thought, but it's out there.
Gasland is telling a story about why the industry needs to change. The common sense policies that the movie is advocating for will not shut down the industry, but they will protect people’s health and their rights.
Gas vs. Coal is a false choice for environmentalists; we need a rapid transformation of our energy consumption during this century. And as advocates for climate protection, we need to be careful about shifting from high-carbon coal to high-methane natural gas; we don't want to jump out the frying pan into the fire.
Getting the nasty chemicals out of fracking fluids pumped into our land AND limiting the amount of water they use are both necessary and non-negotiable. It is our land and our water not theirs. We get to decide not them.
The green angle being sold isn't green if it allows the poisoning of our water and land to save the air.
ACTUALLY, geothermal doesn't...and neither does solar, small-scale wind, small scale hydro, methane capture/use from sewage waste, and I think hemp-based bio-fuels and bio-mass can take us a long way...
From a systems engineering standpoint, I think these home-based energy generation solutions are ALL better than coal/natural gas/nuclear/etc. Eliminating THE greatest energy inefficiency (the "Grid") by home-based energy generation is not only energy independence, but it is homeland security...and it is FAR better for the environment than whatever these "Grid"-based, "Big Energy" interests hope to sell.
From my research, Geothermal is a vital part of the equation, with a combination of energy generation supplements to "get us there". Geothermal cuts existing energy usage dramatically, and is available everywhere. Many of the rest of the solutions have location dependencies, etc.
Also, I've seen modern geothermal systems that doesn't require deep wells. Apparently the earth is about 56 degrees 6' underground, which cuts energy usage dramatically for most human "comfort" temperatures.
You don't hear news about this kind of solution, because BIG $ (various parties = Petroleum/Coal/Natural Gas/Nuclear) profit most from the waste of the "Grid" system. I think the REAL solutions rest with home-based energy generation systems...but they would eventually lead to energy independence and no more energy bills...Big Energy doesn't want that!
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/96-geothermal-exploration-in-iceland-encounters-magma-flowing-into-wellbore-
Geothermal hydraulic fracturing:
http://www.hybridsolutions.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9:hydraulic-fracturing-and-production-study-for-geothermal-wells&catid=15:hydraulic-fracturing-and-production-study&Itemid=17
http://geology.com/press-release/geothermal-power-plant-productivity/
Geothermal wells and earthquakes:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php
http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2525
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/does-geothermal-power-cause-earthquakes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/an-engineer-drafts-a-lett_b_762133.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/mr-ruffalo-and-mr-fox-go_b_824406.html
http://healthjournalistblog.com/josh-fox-calls-on-president-obama-and-the-us-congress-for-an-immediate-nationwide-moratorium-on-hydraulic-fracturing/
In the current legislative environment, and in the context of influence by involved industries, we have to consider whether we have the ability to instate appropriate regulation and oversight along the lines detailed in the links. So far, the pattern has been for the gas industry to blanket itself in PR spin, and denial, rather than come to the table to redress the problems, which do not end with the film's depictions but are affecting the lives of more Americans than a film could cover.
www.healthjournalistblog.com
"Would fracking be safe enough to consider if we all woke up one day, and (surprise) all of these measures were guaranteed to be implemented?
Well, Professor Ingraffea has a draft response. Here it is:
Dear Gas Industry
We have observed, calculated, thought, done the science, and we have concluded that
even "doing it right" is wrong.
No thanks."
So, why say you wish the industry to "come to the table to redress problems" when it appears that you really don't want that, you just want them to end their existence? It seems you believe that the industry can do nothing but evil, no matter what they do, is that not true?
Again don't take this as some kind of attack intended to anger you, I'm just really curious how you get these two things to resolve.
Because these exchanges raise just these questions, I've posted a new blog that I hope addresses your precise question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/is-gas-the-solution-to-ou_b_825014.html
Please let me know if it does!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
I was looking at a report on SO2 emissions from the University of North Dakota. Todays North American emissions are about the same as they were in 1910! Yea EPA!
What happen!
I drive an inconvenient CNG Honda (short legs only about 180 miles between fill ups) still think I'm helping the environment.
Billions of dollars will be spent converting infrastructure to burn yet another finite commodity that will only rise in price as it becomes more scarce and it surely will. It burns cleaner, but what they don't tell you is that when you factor in all the extraction process, you might as well have burned coal and kept the water in vast parts of United States safe and untainted by the trillions of gallons of unknown chemicals used to extract it.
This fuel is clearly a bridge to nowhere.
Many in the investment world are already questioning the estimates of the amount of natural gas that is actually recoverable and predicting a bubble as more and more money is poured in with diminishing results for those that do.
People would be wise to keep NG out of their portfolios as well as their drinking water.
Solar and wind are really too intermittent to offset coal until we figure out the storage though...
Biomass is another bridge to nowhere.... especially corn.
Hydro has its own environmental problems...
Hydrogen and Fusion are decades away from prime time...
IMO the only thing left is geothermal. We should be jumping in whole-hog, and if oil companies were smart they'd be drilling holes all over the country looking for resources.
Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations
Obtained by High-Volume, Slick-Water Hydraulic Fracturing
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20update%20for%20web%20--%20Jan%202011%20(2).pdf
Two scientists from Stanford University and the University of California report (2 parts, linked below) report that the world could eliminate fossil fuel use and rely entirely on clean, renewable energy in as little as twenty years. The recipe for sustainability? Fifty percent wind, 40 percent solar, 4 percent geothermal, 4 percent hydroelectric, and 2 percent wave power.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf Part 1 http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf Part 2
Of course we can only move to clean, sustainable energy if and when governments stop propping up the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer money. In 2009, dirty-energy companies received a whopping $309 billion dollars in government subsidies!
In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to eliminate "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Our new Congress claims it wants to slash spending-let it begin by defunding destructive corporate welfare.
Bill, Please learn more, the tdangerous truth of the matter is pretty clear. Start off with a visit to catskillcitizens.org. You will fid a search feature, you can enter these key words: radioactivity, uranium, toulene, cancer, benzene, contamination, earthquakes....
Secondly I don't see where you got that we could rely entirely on WWS (wind, water, solar) in 20 years from the Stanford papers. They actually say:
"A concerted international effort can lead to scale-up and conversion
of manufacturing capabilities such that by around 2030, the world
no longer will be building new fossil-fuel or nuclear electricity generation
power plants or new transportation equipment using
internal-combustion engines, but rather will be manufacturing
new wind turbines and solar power plants and new electric and
fuel-cell vehicles (excepting aviation, which will use liquid hydrogen
in jet engines). Once this WWS power-plant and electricvehicle
manufacturing and distribution infrastructure is in place,
the remaining stock of fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants and
internal-combustion-engine vehicles can be retired and replaced
with WWS-power-based systems gradually, so that by 2050, the
world is powered by WWS."
And, if you read the papers, they are talking about an extremely aggressive, even radical program, that is to be funded largely by taxpayers. Given that governments in general are already broke, one wonders about the practicality of that.