Fracking to save the Planet

ŠĒ• The American Interest

This news isn’t going make the Greens very happy:

But perhaps the greens should put down their megaphones and protest signs for a minute to take another look at the data. A new report discussed in the¬†FT¬†claims¬†that American shale gas production has actually reduced carbon emissions by 450 million tons over the past five years, during which fracking came into widespread use. As the report mentions, gas‚ÄĒmostly obtained via fracking‚ÄĒhas grown in usage by 38 percent over the past year alone, while much dirtier coal has fallen by nearly 20 percent over the same time period. The correlation between the rise of fracking and a fall in carbon output is not a coincidence. While greens have spent years chasing a global green unicorn, America has been moving towards reducing its carbon footprint on its own, and fracking has been the centerpiece of this change.

In fact, America’s drop in carbon emissions is greater than that of any other country in the survey. Greens have often praised Europe and Australia for their foresight in adopting forward-thinking carbon-trading schemes, while chastising America for its reluctance to do the same. Yet the numbers are out, and America has actually performed better than its carbon-trading peers. From an empirical standpoint, fracking has a much better track record at reducing emissions than the current green dream.

  • Macca

    There is no way the Gweens will ever be able to bring themselves to agree with a report like this for the following reasons;

    A/     It shows America to be proactive leaders Рand they hate anything American
    B/     The report is probably too difficult to anderstand Рfor them, anyone leaning left and the MSM.
    C/¬†¬†¬†¬† The greens will only EVER be happy when we are¬†all living in caves and eating weads – grass would be too good for us and would be protected by then!¬† Of course those of us who cultivate our own weads to eat will have to give most of them to the useless wead eaters and pay a fart tax – because we would undoubtedly fart more often than the wead¬†benificiaries!¬† They would refer to us as the ‘Gweady Rich’!
    D/¬†¬†¬†¬† And the main reason they couldn’t agree with this report is because evrey Gween I have ever met or herd speaking is a FUCKWIT!!!!!!!!!!¬†

  • JulesVenning

    Fracking uses poison to extract gas. This is not an equitable trade off with carbon emissions. Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act traduced by Cheney 2001-2005 deals with Halliburton, therefore Natural forests and Parks destroyed, also clean water destroyed. Planet cannot survive sans clean water. Acrbon emissins neeed to come down, but fracking is NOT the answer. 

    • Euan Rt

      Who knows what that was all about. Don’t you realise that you excrete poisons every time you take a dump? So maybe you should stop eating and thereby do your bit to save the planet by not poisoning it.

      • Boggy

        Never before has a comment made me feel like crying.

  • AnonWgtn

    Greenpeace do not care a f..k what you think – they are always in charge of the process.

    Remember no oil, no plastic.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

      ¬†Now there’s a great idea – like California going back to paper grocery bags instead of plastic…..

  • Blokeintakapuna

    The greens will love to hear about all the gas under Antarctica then‚ĶFor the last 100 years or so reserves of oil has steadily increased. For the same 100 years or so, people have been predicting the imminent arrival of ‚Äúpeak oil‚ÄĚ. They have been wrong every time. Reserves are now 25% higher than they were 10 years ago. Even if oil did start to run out, the immense gas reserves in offshore ‚Äúmethane ice‚ÄĚ (Clathrites) could easily be turned into liquid fuels.¬†According to Rogner*, by 1994 the world had used 291 Giga tonnes of oil equivalent (Gtoe) of fossil fuels and the reserve base was 3,400 Gtoe. If clathrites are included then the resource increases by an amazing 19,000Gtoe.¬†¬†* http://www.scribd.com/doc/54116697/An-Assessmen-of-the-World-Hydrocarbon-Resources-Rogner ¬†¬†Extract from Engineering insight magazine ‚Äď May/June 2012 Pg 43 & 44Article written by Bryan Leyland MSc, FIPENZ, FIEE(rtd), FiMechE.¬†19,000 Gtoe!!!!! Time to trade in the hybrid for a V8!¬†

  • The Bella

    Go and take a look at what areas that are in the pipeline for frackking, Hawkes Bay must be an oil rich district by the look of the rights being marked.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

    Love reading these posts – oil is non-renewable – so when it’s gone its gone. Anything done now to mitigate this is just delaying the inevitable by a couple centuries at best. All we have to do is wait until the same amount of time has passed in the Earth’s lifespan and we’ll get another stock of oil? Not gonna happen.

    In the meantime we are seeing more expensive and high risk techniques being used to get the previously uneconomic stocks out. Like fracking, and deep sea drilling.

    • Blokeintakapuna

      For the last 100 years or so reserves of oil has steadily increased.
      For the same 100 years or so, people have been predicting the imminent arrival of ‚Äúpeak oil‚ÄĚ. They have been wrong every time. Reserves are now 25% higher than they were 10 years ago. Even if oil did start to run out, the immense gas reserves in offshore ‚Äúmethane ice‚ÄĚ (Clathrites) could easily be turned into liquid fuels.¬†

      According to Rogner*, by 1994 the world had used 291 Giga tonnes of oil equivalent (Gtoe) of fossil fuels and the reserve base was 3,400 Gtoe.

      If clathrites are included then the resource increases by an amazing 19,000Gtoe.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

        ¬†My only problem with the use of the term “reserves” is I sincerely hope it isn’t along the same lines as Shell have been using and ended of taking a bath on the stock market when they apologised. Reserves should be actual known amounts – not the latest guesswork which features so regularly on the stock market

  • Le Sphincter

    More likely  its the recession. plus this:

    Warm weather this winter along with high stockpile levels and strong competition from natural gas depressed demand for coal by U.S. electric generators, which accounted for over 93% of total domestic coal use in the first nine months of 2011 

    Gas is only part of it

    • Pukakidon

       Ha Ha once again Phil gets caught talking out of his arse.

      Do you ever say anything factual.

  • Selddot

    A wholly ignorant view Рpleas educate yourself.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html 

    The US EPA are really just a mouth-piece for the federal government. On this issue alone, water, air, carbon, human health are separated in their briefs & under law. This applies to such extent that litigation often exists interdepartmentally under the same guise of an “Environmental Protection Agency”

    http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf 

    Its well known that preference is given to “stakeholders” who have industry background or are current entities that “report” to the EPA over individual submitters personally affected.

    Look at the scope of your¬†almighty¬†report & ask yourself, what’s missing?

    Stop kidding yourselves –¬†http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=118011

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

      ¬†Great piece to add to the debate Seldot…..thanks.

  • Topps

    The PRO-Frackers will regret the day they say Fracking is good for the environment… when they have realized they have polluted all the nations natural underground fresh water aqueducts.

    • Euan Rt

      If you are the twins, then I’ll cut you some slack because they are ‘bloody good blokes’. But to say people say fracking is good for the environment is unfair. I think that environmental risks due to fracking are acceptable, – not good for the environment. Driving a car is not good for the environment.
      …and to say that fracking will pollute all the nations aqueducts (I think you probably mean aquifers), is a little dramatic. Fracking as I understand it, happens at a deeper level the most aquifers, and while there may be some damage to some, it is a long shot to suggest all. I wonder how much damage was done to the aquifers by those fracking big earthquakes they had?

      • Euan Rt

        cntd. ¬†…in Canterbury.

  • Topps

    Thanks for correcting aqueducts to aquifers Euan Rt … but those fracking big earthquakes in CH CH are not the same as pumping poisons in to the earth .. in fact if there was an earthquake after or during fracking¬†the¬†chemicals in the ground¬†used in the¬†fracking process would have a high¬†probability of exposing those chemicals to the underground water aquifers, what ever the depth of the drilling.

    • Kapow

      Check your facts Topps. The alleged poisoning in the water in Ohio was found non existent. The great green authority (EPA) found no harmfull levels of chemicals in the ground water. All were within normal levels.
      There is so much misinformation about Fracking – look out for the upcoming film FRACKNATION for a good alternative view. And before you say that it is big oil funded propaganda, it was funded by individuals with small donations.

109%