The appeal of natural gas does not lie in the "energy solution" it will bring, but rather the reaction people have about it and the damage it will bring.
Natural Gas and specifically hydraulic fracturing has become of major interest to me in the past few years. I am from Sullivan County, NY, an area that is on the fringe of "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas," the Marcellus Shale region. Not only could my water supply be contaminated by fracking, but my grandparent's cabin community has already been asked to lease their land for drilling by these companies. They wouldn't receive much money in the first place, but that's not the concern. And while my grandparent's health (and my own) is of obvious concern, they are by no means the only reasons it has become of interest.
Of equal importance is the societal response that surrounds the issue and the environmental damage that is occurring because of it. All the talk of America's decreased dependence on foreign oil, energy independence and increased jobs is the biggest seller and I find it fascinating as someone who thinks that the value system and broad public understanding of the implications behind this are not healthy. Moreover, the broad public benefit is actually completely different and in fact much less than what it is often perceived as being.
Additionally, the focus that is put on the economic benefits, the trust that is put into the short-term financial projections of this investment are interesting, especially when put up against the long term issues that it will impact such as healthcare and environmental damage.
Research has been unveiled about human nature and the ways in which we react to things. There is increasing support that humans do not act rationally and that emotion and values play a huge role. The Garrison Institute held a conference recently about this very topic and it was reported by Time Magazine: "The Greening of the American Brain."
Anyway, I plan on continuing with interest and research in this subject and will hopefully do some more posting regarding it.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Natural Gas: America's Energy Dilemma
This week the New York Times published an article about research that is soon to be released regarding the natural gas industry in America.
The article discusses two interrelated pieces of research, one published by NASA that discusses the potential damage from methane pollution and another by Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. Howarth's research finds that natural gas is not the "clean energy solution" that it is being touted as by industry, popular media and the Obama administration.
Howarth's research takes on one of natural gas' rising stars; hydraulic fracturing, "fracking," and examines pollution rates throughout the process; from extraction to burning. When natural gas is popularly called "cleaner and more efficient" than coal or oil the preachers are often limiting their statement to the burning process. There is a world of other elements that need to be examined, and Mr. Howarth's research opens the door for it.
The reaction from the pro-natural gas industry is already clear. They're denouncing Howarth's research and calling him an advocate who is against hydraulic fracturing (fracking), an unconventional extraction process (highlighted in the Oscar nominated documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox).
Well YES, he very well could be against this method of extraction; he's a scientist who developed and performed studied that resulted in conclusions that blatantly give data of WHY he should be opposed to this method of extraction.
While he mentions his research is the first study and that it should be followed by many more, his conclusions are seemingly strong enough to bring enough concern to the industry for them to give pause and think about the process, give the EPA pause regarding the regulations surrounding the process and give the Obama administration extreme pause before continuing to massage this method into the public's mind as a "Clean alternative."
And perhaps most importantly give the public pause before they jump onto the bandwagon of "energy independence," "cleaner than foreign oil" and whatever other drag-show cover ups are being put onto this marketing campaign.
Surely the pro-Gas industry is already gearing up for a heavy assault of propaganda that will declare this study and its authors as not worthy of being believed. They'll probably declare them unpatriotic and perhaps even Socialists who do not deserve the attention of the public or Congress.
The same day that this article was published in the New York Times, they featured an Op-Ed piece from a pro-Natural Gas fella titled, "Pass the Boone Pickens Bill." He immediately prefaces his piece by stating his personal friendship with T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon who is a major supporter of exploiting America's natural gas reserves. While this could be seen as being honest in his stance and hopefully bringing some weariness to readers, it most likely brings support to his piece for anyone without journalistic weariness. This blatant connection serves to indirectly strengthen his stance and his conclusion. Readers may tend to believe that someone with personal connection to the main supporter of this legislation must know what he's talking about when it should, in reality, immediately reveal the weakness and strong bias that are attached to his words and opinion.
While Mr. Nocera may truly believe - and have the background experience (working closely with Pickens) to support his opinion - that exploiting America's natural gas reserves will "decrease America's dependency on foreign oil," bring jobs to America and - along with it - strengthen the economy, his background (and opinion) shows that he's not terribly concerned with "America" as it pertains to the health of its citizens or protecting the environment.
He makes a huge mistake in saying that "you can’t use solar or wind to power a vehicle," as electric vehicles and electric-run mass transportation can increasingly compete with fossil fuel driven vehicles.
Natural Gas and America's Health
But more importantly, this fella and his Texas puppeteer, T. Boone Pickens are advocating the exploitation of an industry that is potentially WORSE than coal and oil in terms of carbon and methane emissions AND an industry that brings serious health risks to the very nation that they are aiming to bring "Salvation" to.
As the Halliburton trucks and drilling facilities spread wider across this nation, more and more evidence arises that the very process of extraction is proving extremely dangerous to drinking water, localized air pollution and, as Howarth's research shows, the earth's atmosphere.
While jobs may be created by the natural gas industry, those very workers and their families; not to mention the towns, villages and surrounding population are being put in serious health risk by the industry. Hopefully their paychecks will be saved for the healthcare costs that are going to pile up in their future.
The article discusses two interrelated pieces of research, one published by NASA that discusses the potential damage from methane pollution and another by Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. Howarth's research finds that natural gas is not the "clean energy solution" that it is being touted as by industry, popular media and the Obama administration.
Howarth's research takes on one of natural gas' rising stars; hydraulic fracturing, "fracking," and examines pollution rates throughout the process; from extraction to burning. When natural gas is popularly called "cleaner and more efficient" than coal or oil the preachers are often limiting their statement to the burning process. There is a world of other elements that need to be examined, and Mr. Howarth's research opens the door for it.
The reaction from the pro-natural gas industry is already clear. They're denouncing Howarth's research and calling him an advocate who is against hydraulic fracturing (fracking), an unconventional extraction process (highlighted in the Oscar nominated documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox).
Well YES, he very well could be against this method of extraction; he's a scientist who developed and performed studied that resulted in conclusions that blatantly give data of WHY he should be opposed to this method of extraction.
While he mentions his research is the first study and that it should be followed by many more, his conclusions are seemingly strong enough to bring enough concern to the industry for them to give pause and think about the process, give the EPA pause regarding the regulations surrounding the process and give the Obama administration extreme pause before continuing to massage this method into the public's mind as a "Clean alternative."
And perhaps most importantly give the public pause before they jump onto the bandwagon of "energy independence," "cleaner than foreign oil" and whatever other drag-show cover ups are being put onto this marketing campaign.
Surely the pro-Gas industry is already gearing up for a heavy assault of propaganda that will declare this study and its authors as not worthy of being believed. They'll probably declare them unpatriotic and perhaps even Socialists who do not deserve the attention of the public or Congress.
The same day that this article was published in the New York Times, they featured an Op-Ed piece from a pro-Natural Gas fella titled, "Pass the Boone Pickens Bill." He immediately prefaces his piece by stating his personal friendship with T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon who is a major supporter of exploiting America's natural gas reserves. While this could be seen as being honest in his stance and hopefully bringing some weariness to readers, it most likely brings support to his piece for anyone without journalistic weariness. This blatant connection serves to indirectly strengthen his stance and his conclusion. Readers may tend to believe that someone with personal connection to the main supporter of this legislation must know what he's talking about when it should, in reality, immediately reveal the weakness and strong bias that are attached to his words and opinion.
While Mr. Nocera may truly believe - and have the background experience (working closely with Pickens) to support his opinion - that exploiting America's natural gas reserves will "decrease America's dependency on foreign oil," bring jobs to America and - along with it - strengthen the economy, his background (and opinion) shows that he's not terribly concerned with "America" as it pertains to the health of its citizens or protecting the environment.
He makes a huge mistake in saying that "you can’t use solar or wind to power a vehicle," as electric vehicles and electric-run mass transportation can increasingly compete with fossil fuel driven vehicles.
Natural Gas and America's Health
But more importantly, this fella and his Texas puppeteer, T. Boone Pickens are advocating the exploitation of an industry that is potentially WORSE than coal and oil in terms of carbon and methane emissions AND an industry that brings serious health risks to the very nation that they are aiming to bring "Salvation" to.
As the Halliburton trucks and drilling facilities spread wider across this nation, more and more evidence arises that the very process of extraction is proving extremely dangerous to drinking water, localized air pollution and, as Howarth's research shows, the earth's atmosphere.
While jobs may be created by the natural gas industry, those very workers and their families; not to mention the towns, villages and surrounding population are being put in serious health risk by the industry. Hopefully their paychecks will be saved for the healthcare costs that are going to pile up in their future.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Adam Meier invited you to Dropbox
| ||||
| ||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
