From a perspective of more than three decades of experience in energy program management and regulation, I can truly appreciate the incredible technological and regulatory strides our country has made. And looking back at some of the challenges encountered during my first years of work at the Department of Energy in the 1970s, I marvel at how we've met and far surpassed expectations.
Since 1970, the total U.S. population has grown by 42%, GDP has grown by 195%, and energy consumption has increased 178%. Yet between 1970 and 2005, our energy intensity and our emission of six principal air pollutants decreased by 53%. Additionally the number of our lakes, rivers, and streams that meet state quality goals is up 33% from 30 years ago.
Early environmental laws and regulations established by federal, state, and local governments deserve a major part of the credit for this dramatic increase in energy efficiency and environmental quality. And our economy played an important role too.
As one Department of Interior analyst observed, "Cleaner air is a direct consequence of better technologies and the enormous and sustained investments that only a rich nation could have sunk into developing, installing, and operating these technologies."
Natural gas provides an excellent case study of this effect.
Technological advances, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, have opened up vast new supplies of affordable natural gas. As a result, the cost dynamics of natural gas projects have changed as well -- leading to greater use of natural gas powered buses to improve air quality in cities, conversion away from old, outdated, inefficient coal power generation towards cleaner natural gas plants, and a better economic profile for renewable energy projects that rely on natural gas as a back-up power source.
Not only has investment in shale gas risen to record levels, but the natural gas industry now employs more of our citizens than ever before. That's especially good news at a time when the national unemployment rate holds at a staggering 16.7% for African Americans.
In addition to making natural gas a more cost effective, more job creating industry, proactive leadership by state regulators and advances in production technologies have also made natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing an even more environmentally friendly. Natural gas companies now drill multiple wells at single location to reduce the footprint of development, while new regulations have drastically improved water recycling efforts to minimize waste.
Smarter regulation of the industry's operation and better technology has won over a number of environmental advocates as well. Frank Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council said of natural gas in 2010, "we need to look at ways in which we can reduce our carbon footprint now and it's appealing that it has a smaller footprint" than traditional methods of oil and gas extraction. Others, like Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, view natural gas development as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional methods: "Natural gas is an excellent example of a fuel that can be produced in quite a clean way, and shouldn't be wasted."
While the record speaks for itself, it's important that we continue to support environmental improvement while also trumpeting the benefits of natural gas development. The balance between these forces has been the driver of U.S. progress in the past and can ensure continued advancement toward a healthier, more environmentally and economically sustainable future.
As our national demand increases over the next several decades, technological advances coupled with proficient, competent regulation is important to our energy security and a prosperous future.
Elah Feder: Why We Environmentalists Are Hypocrites
From the Sierra Club's ENERGY RESOURCES POLICY "While natural gas may burn cleaner than other fossil fuels, it is still a fossil fuel and it is far from clean. Natural gas exploration, production, and transportation causes significant damage to communities and ecosystems, including air and water pollution, surface disturbance, and waste disposal impacts. The production, transport and burning of natural gas remains a significant source of CO2 and methane."
The only thing that natural gas does is burn somewhat cleaner than coal but as a carbon based fuel.
the extraction transportation and disposal of waste is still a significant source of pollution. In addition recent studies show that switching from coal to natural gas may not lower greenhouse gas emissions!
David Meiser, Co leader Sierra Club Hydrofracking team http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team
"Our country needs to end its dependence on coal and oil by 2030 and to rapidly replace these polluting fuels through energy efficiency and clean renewable energy. But most experts agree we won't be able to bring large amounts of new renewable energy on line fast enough to totally replace coal and oil.As we move to a clean energy future, the Sierra Club is generally not opposed to continued production from existing gas fields, but it must be subject to much stronger national and state standards that protect the environment, human health, safety and communities."
I could not agree more -- but I have often been discouraged by the hatred and bitterness expressed by conservatives but the words used by many environmentalists on these blogs is just as bad. There are other policy objectives we have to satisfy -- energy security, non-GHG air pollution like mercury, improving the quality of people's lives in the least developed countries where affordable energy (renewables are not affordable, please) is the difference between life and death, economic competitiveness, the list is long. I care most about climate change which is why I know we need gas. There are however other issues and we are not all greedy murderers in the pockets of the Koch brothers. Please try to put a stop to this vitriol.
Also, my reference to SOX/NOX/ mercury and CO2 is comparing gas to coal power generation. The EPA website notes that the largest source of these pollutants by far is from power generation where gas is highly preferable to coal. Further CO2e emissions from gas PRODUCTION represent less than one percent of the US total. I urge you to compare this to emissions from coal fired power generation (and SOX/NOX/mercury/particulates as well). Also, aren’t SOX/NOX/particulates covered by the Clean Air Act? Are Wyoming gas producers violating the CAA? I don't know the answer but if they are, they should be forced to comply.
My point continues to be that the only we we can immediately reduce CO2 emissions from power generation at a meaningful scale is switching from coal to gas. It's pretty simple, the rest is tough but manageable.
They did an extensive scientific study and identified the source. Natural gas wells in Sublette county. There was no other source identified.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.15/epa-aims-to-clean-up-polluted-air-in-western-gas-fields?src=me
http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/Ozone%20Forum/SubletteCountyToxicsStudy_Overview_Sept152010%5B1%5D.pdf
I dare the author of this bogus article to spin this into something clean and green.
The fact that the Jonah field is the oldest and largest is just an indicator of whats to come for the other shale sacrifice zones. The Barnett in Fort Worth Texas is already experiencing similar problems. Its a repeat of the Wyoming story and the other plays are soon to follow. The industry lobbies the affected states to NOT test in the way Wyoming has done.
In Wyoming the industry doesn't have ANYTHING to blame it on besides themselves. They own this and they know it.
By the way, to be clear the Board of Directors of American Association of Blacks in Energy is made up of industry executives. So consider this article by the COO of the American Association of Blacks in Energy another advertisment for gas.
BTW, Howarth, whom you reference is not a climate scientist although he is trying to act like one. The real climate scientists think his paper is pure nonsense. Stop making pottery and get an education.
Inevitably, any HuffPo article on shale gas must be accomopanied by a rash of science-deniers who think "Gasland" is a credible scientific source, and the MIT study panel a corrupt collection of hacks.
It's nice that HuffPo runs the occasional article against type.
Luckily, you're not an "anything" executive. (I.e. you're not in charge of anything).
Enjoy your tin hat!