Posted on 12/18/2013 5:32:47 AM PST by thackney
SUMMARY
Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking are making a tragic mistake.
Some oppose shale gas because it is a fossil fuel, a source of carbon dioxide. Some are concerned by accounts of the fresh water it needs, by flaming faucets, by leaked “fugitive methane”, by pollution of the ground with fracking fluid and by damaging earthquakes.
These concerns are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.
For shale gas is a wonderful gift that has arrived just in time. It can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly pollution known as PM2.5 that is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world.
This air pollution has been largely ignored because PM2.5 was an unrecognised danger until recently; only in 1997 did it become part of the US National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It is still not monitored in much of the world.
Greenhouse warming is widely acknowledged as a serious long-term threat, but PM2.5 is currently harming more people.
Europe shares an ironic advantage with China – the high price paid for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to US$3.50 in the US). At those prices, the cost of shale drilling and completion can be much higher and still be profitable. Europe can therefore be the testing and proving ground where innovative technology can be tried and perfected while still profitable.
As both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the development and utilisation of shale gas, developed economies should help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas. Shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared freely.
Finally, environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
Not exactly a conservative source, but may provide useful arguments to the environMENTALists supporting hydraulic fracturing.
Well, only if you accept their motivations as stated,
protecting the environment,
and not what they really are -
denying cheap energy to the masses.
There are ONLY two energy sources that would make the Green-Marxists happy:
1. A 1”x1” solar panel that would power an entire grocery store.
2. Burning babies.
As long as it is not increasing the amount of activity earthquake particulatly around the undergound Yellowstone magma systems. That’s one gigantic pimple waiting to blow. Some people are starting to correlate earthquake activity with fracking. Case in point; in Texas they’re starting to have earthquake activity and it seems to be in areas where fracking is taking place. Texas typically does not have eartquakes.
At most what fracking would do is speed up the process. In such situations, earth quakes would be more frequent, but less powerful. After the initial rash of earthquakes everything should settle down, IF it is fracking related.
I don't think they'll be doing any fracking around the Yellowstone caldera, as they would be getting lava back up their feed pipe.
Earth quakes are not unknown to any region, we are on giant masses of floating rock.
Unfortunately, the number of "serious" environmentalists can probably be counted without needing to use all fingers and toes.
Environmentalists supported natural gas until we found it, in abundance, right under our feet.
Environmentalists supported clean coal until President Obama declared war on coal.
Of course, the idea was to make energy expensive, so inefficient solar and wind would look more competitive.
But, because domestically produced gas and oil pose a major threat to alternatives, like solar and wind, environmentalists have decided to oppose all hydrocarbon energy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.