For those who are following the debate in this country on shale gas development, as I am, today’s column by David Brooks in the New York Times is a must read.
In balanced terms, Brooks summarizes the future energy and economic potential of America’s enormous shale gas endowment – and the current debate surrounding its safe and responsible production. The benefits of shale gas development in terms of economic growth, job creation and energy security are without question, as he points out. The only question is whether our political leaders will permit these benefits to be realized.
Brooks is an independent thinker and keen observer of the American political landscape, so his words carry weight. His column makes a valuable contribution to the important debate on U.S. shale gas development.
At the end of the day “it’s ALL about ENERGY “!
Unless you and other caring entities start demanding/screaming for everyone and every entity to ” STOP the/our/your Energy WASTE”, we are doomed to the inevitable consequences of global warming, as well as continually escalating energy prices.
Reducing energy WASTE and over-consumption, is the ONLY remedy to a sustainable economy and a livable planet.
Meanwhile, America Continues to Waste over 70% of the Energy it Consumes. Our hedonist energy waste is culturally pervasive, and abominable ! (1) 100′s of millions of lights burn unnecessarily during the day and night. (2) We over heat and over cool our SCHOOLS, businesses, offices, homes, churches, etc… (businesses and public buildings waste the most). (3) Recycling is inadequate. Our landfills are busier than ever. Over-packaging is the norm. Plastics are omnipresent pollution. (4) Most Americans do not minimize their driving. Road congestion is horrendous. (5) America’s obsession with road construction is the ultimate contradiction.
Most Americans will not significantly conserve until the economic cost of waste is punitive. Only with a substantial and tangible dollar reward/consequence, will most Americans care to conserve. Taxing energy (in lieu of income taxes) is the ONLY way to stop our horrendous energy waste and will… read more »
…cause us to employ renewable energy sources while eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Crude oil needs to be taxed at $200 per barrel(42 gal) and ‘offset’ by making Federal IncomeTax begin at $80k.
Look around you; Energy Waste is EVERYWHERE !
Global warming to extinction will be the reward for our continued fossil fuel use. What are we humans waiting for; Stop our/the/your energy waste: Now !
FREE Alternative Energy Available Now : C O N S E R V A T I O N
Lowell Michalove, PhD Energy Conservation Advocate
Lmmicha@gmail.com
I generally agree with conservation, but not with taxation.
$200 per barrel? Our economy would be brought to the prone position, from it’s knees where it’s at now. We can’t even get our gov’t to agree on the changes recommended by the credit rating agencies to avoid a credit downgrade – they had a YEAR to do so.
You are also obviously someone who doesn’t need a vital economy to survive. You don’t need a job, and I’m guessing your income is below $80K.
All of which suggests to me that you are promoting a religion here, nothing else. Especially starting off with the global warming alarm.
Do you believe everything you read? There is a whole branch of journalism devoted to climate change now. If it’s not anthropogenic they are out of a job. You appear to be slightly behind the times, they had to change terminology to climate change from global warming because temperatures have been moderating or declining since 1998.
Here’s something easy for you to check, just one little factoid:
CO2 comprises .04% – 4/100 of 1 percent of our atmosphere.
How it could change our temperature by trapping significant infrared radiation is beyond me.
Man-made CO2 is estimated to be… read more »
…15% of that over 150 years, or .006% of atmosphere. Clouds and water vapor are more than 100 times as significant to earth’s greenhouse effect, but they are not taxable. More CO2 in our atmosphere is beneficial, not harmful, by helping crops to grow.
I don’t mind being taxed a little but I get angry when somebody, especially my government, tries to hoodwink me.
Scott
There is so much dis/misinformation in your response it’s appalling. Before you label someone’s opinion as a ‘religion’ (simply because it reflects the prevailing consensus of an informed group) one should check one’s own religion at the door…specifically, the ‘free-market’ religion.
Your initial comment about a ‘vital economy’ is nearly meaningless without a definition of economic vitality. A vital economy that does not run on fossil fuels is certainly possible and doable, despite what the owners of this website (EXXONMOBIL) would prefer you to believe.
But to the points:
You wrote: “You appear to be slightly behind the times, they had to change terminology to climate change from global warming because temperatures have been moderating or declining since 1998.”
It is you who is behind, or willfully ignorant, of the consensus of thousands of climate scientists from over 50 nations.(but you know better, right?) The change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change was done to remove confusion about the impacts and effects of ghg-induced climate change (which is warming overall, but does not mean that cold spells and extreme winters are gone for good); the impacts from GHG-induced Climate Change (as well as bad resource and land management practices)… read more »
…are many and variable (but overall, negatively impacting on animals and humans through sea level changes, permafrost melting, forest cover loss, erosion, altering of ecosystems, collapsing of marine ecosystems…).
Average global temperatures are rising, fairly steadily, and they are rising fastest at the poles (north pole in particular), causing albedo loss and (indications are) promoting a positive feedback effect on sea ice loss. The last time that global temperatures were this warm was 120,000 years ago (during a late Pleistocene interglacial/warming period), according to paleoclimate data analyses.
Asking if the commenter believes everything he reads is ironic…do you? Where do you get your information from? Even if there is some basic scientific truth to some of what you say, why is there no mention of the over-whelming science supporting anthropogenic climate change? Did you not read ANY of these studies, or, do you only read climate change denialist blogs?
As to CO2: the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has been slowly. steadily increasing over the past decades, measured in part per million (ppm) we are now well over 350 ppm (scientists say we need to stay below 350 ppm in order to mitigate/slow down warming impacts).
CO2 (and other GH gases and some aerosols, like N2O and black soot from burned biomass) traps heat in the form of short-wave radiation, which produces a ‘forcing’ effect on global average temperatures. But other gases (like methane, nitrogen oxides, etc.) also do this, but the effects vary depending upon where this build up occurs (stratosphere, troposphere, etc.) and how long the ghg’s stay in the atmosphere.
AS to the CO2 “fertilization” effect, Norby et al have shown that this effect (increased growth of plant biomass) is temporary, and ultimately limited by the Nitrogen cycle (the ultimate determinant of plant growth); after about 6 years of increased growth, productivity declines rapidly due to depletion of soil nitrogen.
Now some of this carbon dioxide is sequestered in the soil or plant biomass, but not all of it (some is given off as pentacene, a natural GHG)
Tropical and boreal forests comprise the major terrestrial carbon sinks….thus, destroying them for ranching or OIL exploration is bad for controlling climate change (and preserving biodiversity). Pretty basic stuff there.
As to clouds an water vapor, these tend to cool the lower atmosphere (troposphere), not warm it,although some aerosol cloud formation can serve to trap long-wave radiation near the surface of the earth, so the effect is variable. You can’t tax a natural process, but you can tax a human made one.
Simple. The problem is not taxation, but whom is taxed. Taxing the polluters and carbon=-heavy industries, and either ear-marking this revenue for renewables, or, passing it along to consumers ($ in your pocket) as recommended by James Hansen of NASA (“fee and dividend”) would be a great way of providing incentive to industry to change their practices.
You worry about the government hood winking you (but its scientists that are providing the data for climate change theories), bu t not that OIL COMPANIES are hoodwinking you?
With that kind of thinking I am afraid for our future.
Oh, and the David Brooks piece: he leaves out methane contamination of water wells (see the Duke University study), BTEX contamination (long-term), tearthquakes, lack of chemical disclosure rules for the industry (suppliers don’t even know what’s in the chemical fracking fluids), and used fracking fluids sent to waste water treatment plants that are not designed to process it, and detection of radioactive compounds in the fluid (about 2%)….I will not speculate to Brook’s self-interests here, I will only note his ignorance.
Michael
First af all, there are not 1000′s of climate scientists, but a few hundred. The 2500 IPCC ‘scientists’ are mostly political scientists, social scientists, lawyers, environmentalists, economists, politicians, etc, etc, and less than 100 climate scientists – many of whom are concerned about GW, but object to the manner their science is misused in the Executive Summaries of the IPCC work. For example, omitting selected weather stations in Siberia and Canada to imply more warming. I could go on for days with examples. Just one more comment – the effect of CO2 on global temperature is logarithmic: the more you put into the atmosphere the less impact it has on the temperature.
By the way, in the U.S, we have thousands of miles of petroleum and natural gas pipelines. But no, you want the Canadians to pipe it to the coast and sell it to the China in tankers where there is a higher risk to pollute the environment..
QED
The fact that understanding the science is beyond you tells us about you, not about science. Is anyone else getting tired of explaining that global warming is a fact based on a global average. All this extra energy in the atmosphere results in increased severe weather, which results in greater deviations from the mean. If you’re cold, that’s not information about planet Earth.
Al Engelhart, PE
Thoughts while reading scott hutchinson’s reply, Nov 13, ’11.
Question: Is Hutchinson more than likely a paid writer, a ‘shill’ for Exxon?.
It’s been MORE than 40 years since our first encounter with energy shortages—initially from political causes (later economical & environmental), and we haven’t yet learned our lesson. In the USA, as probably everywhere, people follow their pocketbook. No incentives, positive or negative—no action.
Your comment: “You are also obviously someone who doesn’t need a vital economy to survive. You don’t need a job, and I’m guessing your income is below $80K.” _Who knows what your income from Exxon is, whether it is greater or less than $80K. But you write so well for Exxon. By the way, is that your real name?
Your comment: “Do you believe everything you read?” … regarding global warming alarm as a religion. _No, we don’t. We especially don’t believe you, whose ‘religion’ is nay saying 99% of scientists.
RE: “If it’s not anthropogenic they are out of a job”. _Mr. Hutchinson—YOU’RE out of a job if no one believes you.
RE: “just one little factoid:_CO2 comprises .04% – 4/100 of 1 percent of our atmosphere.” _You must be a paid writer, not a… read more »
…chemist. You don’t need much CO2 to dramatically alter reflectivity of heat back to earth. AND, methane, a product of drilling for natural gas, traps heat with 25 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide. Additionally, NOx and soot are both products of combustion utilized for electrical generation, transportation & heating.
ScottHutchinson – It is quite obvious that thermal transfer and IR reflectivity are beyond you!
Why do you think transparent glass greenhouses work so well — even in Winter?
Global climate change concerns do NOT require the temperature to reach 200-degreees. Because the ecosystems of the earth are so closely balanced, a few tenths of a degree change can have profound and wide-ranging influences. Suppose your own body was suddenly running at 99.4-degrees — would you be unconcerned?
The MIT study can be found here; the excerpt Brook’s quoted is from Section 2: Supply, pg.15.
http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/report-natural-gas.pdf
After reading this book, everyone should watch the HBO Documentary Gaslands. Look for it on You Tube or Google Video.
Virtually every claim in the so called documentary “Gasland” has been refuted multiple times with accurate, scientifically provable data which is available to everyone. Just go to this and you can check it out for yourself. What’s sickening about Gasland is that it is being shown in schools across the country and children are told that it is the truth. It’s right up there in the made-up propaganda fantasy world with Michael Moore’s crap!
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
I have to agree with you Scott. The Climate change we are or will be experiencing is the planet going through its normal change. How can we be responsible for this climate change when we are such an insignificant part of the planet. We only inhabit the minimal land mass this planet has, and we arent standing on top of one another. To think this minute presence has any effect on this HUGE planet, is rediculous. Unless of course you have monet riding on the green movement. One day the world is going to find out how much of a lie it all is and that pompous Vice President Gore will have his pulitzer prize taken away.
Mr. Brooks does a good job in explaining the natural gas revolution ongoing in the United States. As an geologist who happens to work in the region of the Bakken oil discovery, job not related to drill or finding oil or gas, I have made an effort to learn all that I can about fracing. The major concern seems to be the chemicals injected into the geological strata and the concern about what they might do to ground water supplies. Firstly and formost, fracing occurs well below the elevation of most ground water supplies. How many water wells are over 10,000 feed deep. None. Furthermore, the chemicals amount to about 1/2 of 1% of the volume of fluids used in the fracing process. with water and sand being the vast majority. Care is taken to cement the well casings to even further reduce the possibility of harming ground or subsurface water supplies.
In my opinion the concern about fracing is about the only remaining tool to the environmental wacko’s to try and force our country into being GREEN versus carbon based fuels.
To date, for anyone who has paid attention knows, the… read more »
…green energy industry would basically have to close its doors if it were not for the government, note not our government but the government, robbing our tax dollars and using them to support the basically usless green energy boondodgle. In North Dakota we have lots of wind and many wind electrical generation towers. Yes, they do provide some off peck electrical energy that power producing company’s MUST purchase. If not for government regualtions the wind towers would go the way of the Stanley Steamer Cars.
For the forseeable future carbon based fuels are going to remain the country’s mail source of energy, be it either gas, shale gas, oil to include oil from shale bearing formations, and coal. If most don’t know, coal is making great strides in cleaning up their emissions. Of course, the EPA is making the rules so strict that it is going to be hard for coal but eventually they will get the job done.
So, until someone comes up with a better form of energy, and remember even electric cars get their energy from some form of carbon based fuels that are used to produce electrical power. So anyone who bothers to look at the whole picture and look at with an unbiased view has to realize we are going to be using carbon based fuels for many years to come, so why not use the cleanest fuel, gas, especially until further advances can be made in cleanng up coal and fuel oil emisssions from power generation.
Actually, its a no brainer to anyone who has the lest bit of wit about themselves. Look what has happened to Spain when the liberals forced green energy upon its citizens. They are basicaly bank rupt, that not we are far behind but if America does not have clean sources of energy, and gas is the current cleanest carbon based fuel there is, our fall will be even greater than Spains. Think the economy is bad now, think about what it would be like if we did not have cheap energy sources.
Yes, there are draw backs to carbon based fuels, and yes we waste vast amounts of fuel powering lights at night and over heating our buildings et cetera but I challenge anyone who thinks they have a better solution to providing the power we need as a civilization to survive at a price the individual including the 99% which is really about 1% can affrod to step up and do it. Do it with private money that is not money from those of us who still pay taxes.
La La land is nice, reality sometimes is less than we desire but reality is reality. If we are going to survive as a nation and as people then until whenever people in my opinion are going to have to educate themselves about power generation and power sources so they can be informed versus falling to the drible the mindless drones who hear some clown, our President comes to mind when he expounds without his teleprompter , believe.
Its not so bad and certainly could be a lot worse. The other area the mindless drones need to educate themselves about is what is really transpiring related to golbal climate change. Yes, it appears the climate is changing but agian for anyone who bothers to realy evaluate what is transpiring versus just again listening to some half informed clown expound his dribble, the climate of the world is always changing. It has been hotter and it has been cooler, think ice ages, and the cycle will continue long after mankind has vanished from the surface of the earth. We are but a moment in time and anyone who really believes that we are to total cause related green house gases, cooling or warming, though the evidence is beginning to be revealed that we are actualy cooling versus get hotter, has not really taken the time to educate themselves and as many have done are just whining and moaning because our fearless leaders who really don’t lead much are stating positions that are not factual but do seem to get a certain percent of the drones to follow them.
A sustainable future is the goal but to get to that point it still is going to requrie the use of vast quantities of carbon based fuels until that lofty goal is obtianed. Its either use gas, oil and coal or we can all return to the farm or ranch, grow our own food, weave our own cloth, churn our own butter, milk the cow, got to the chicken coop and collect eges, own couple of horses so we can travel 12 miles or more to the nearest store and live in a root celler in the winter and try to find a shady tree in the summer.
Your choice.
Brooks’ column is really out of character for both him and the nyt, and hardly fits their mold. The nyt must really be getting desperate for readership.
Shale gas really will change things in the energy market generally and electric power generation in particular, as it can be burned so efficiently (in combined cycle gas/steam turbine cookie cutter units at > 60% busbar efficiency. Even higher – 70% -with solar assist condensate/feedwater heating. The plants can also incorporate cogeneration – productive waste heat usage tho someone simply HAS to come up with a way to put condenser reject heat to good, profitable use rather than just dissipating it. Maybe fish ponds, greenhouses (which could use a good fraction of the stack CO2 produced as well) or the like) and the simple methane molecule, CH4, comprising most of the natural gas stream, oxidizes less carbon by far than any other hydrocarbon fuel.
Fracking can pose problems and has in some instances and a sharp eye has to be kept on the companies doing it, but by and large fracking and shale gas generally is a boon to everyone.
It’s also true that we need MUCH more efficiency in energy usage and it’s probably,… read more »
…regrettably, true that only higher energy costs will do that.
Could this essay be a trend for the nyt? Naw. Don’t hold your breath. I doubt it. Overall they’re just as corrupt and disgustingly lib as they ever have been.
Also something has to be done about automotive ‘efficiency’ which is historically abysmal, on avg probably little more than 19% of the energy of the fuel burned reaching the wheels, even with hybrids. That and our inefficiency in energy usage generally, our pervasive waste, is a disgrace.
I can’t help but be concerned about the use of ethyl glycol anti freeze as it poisons the animals people are going to ingest this.
http://www.emagazine.com/daily-news/ohio-quakes-linked-to-fracking
This is supposedly earth quake damage at Youngstown, Ohio, supposed linked to a injection well. Look close, notice the post on the back ground, notice the end in the road and the bank drop off? It is a picture of flood damage from the looks of it. I would guess with the flora pictured the picture was taken of flood damage in the Williams Port Pa. area after the flooding in 2011. I sent a message to the site asking where the picture was taken, result no answer. Notice the washed up debris on the roadway. What other propaganda is being perpetuated upon the public against fracking. Where is Myth Busters at on this?
Have you ever given any thought as to how many gallons of ethyl glycol anti freeze is bought and used every year in the US just in the motor vehicle application and where it all goes? See http://www.eetcorp.com/antifreeze/antifreeze-faq.htm#q5
“Worldwide, over 400 million gallons of antifreeze concentrate are sold each year. After the typical 50% dilution with water, this yields about 800 million gallons of engine coolant. Between 25 and 50% of this volume ends up improperly in the environment, and dumping by consumers is a major cause of this pollution. Approximately 90+% of the remainder is mixed with wastewater, treated, then discarded to surface waters.”
What does that do to your train of thought on anti freeze and fracking in comparison. Not all wells are fracked with antifreeze so that even reduces or could even explain how a frack job could be associated with
ethyl glycol anti freeze but in fact be associated with unknown surface contamination from automotive junk yard even casual disposal by individuals and runoffs in years past.. Remember when looking for contaminates trace amounts are sought in the parts per million or even less at times.