Most Americans don’t give a frack about fracking

[xchrom]

http://grist.org/news/most-americans-dont-give-a-frack-about-fracking/

You might think fracking is a highly divisive, heatedly contested issue, but most Americans don’t give a damn about it either way.

The latest Climate Change in the American Mind survey found that 39 percent of respondents had never heard of fracking, while another 13 percent didn’t know whether they had heard of it.

So it’s not too much of a surprise, then, to learn that 58 percent of survey respondents held no opinion on whether fracking is a good thing or a bad thing.

Those who did have an opinion were roughly split between supporters and opponents, the survey found. Older conservative men tended to think it’s ace. Younger liberal women did not.

[Thinkingabout]

1. There has been effective campaign to restrict information of earthquake events around areas

Where fracking is used. In areas where there has not been records of earthquakes we see earthquakes. I am not sure if the safe procedure is followed but I never expect to have the industry regulate themselves. The Oil and Gas Industry pushes so hard to get the most performance in the shortest time and pushes the safety on the back burner.

[woodsprite]

2. Son and I had a discussion about fracking this morning.

He went to school with his "Get the Frack out of my Water" water bottle today. He said he wanted to see how many questions he received but he wanted to make sure he understood what it was.

Came straight to DU to get him some info. I'll pass this along to him tonight when he gets home.

Thanks for posting!

[newfie11]

3. Out of sight out of mind

Head in sand
Doesn't involve guns
Doesn't apply to my neighborhood ( so they think)
That is the majority of the American population, until it applies to them directly
They could care less.

[rickford66]

4. who has an opinion ?

If a fracking well is going to be drilled within 1000 feet of your home, you'll get educated very quickly and form an opinion. Pro-fracking landowners say that fracking bans are stopping them from profiting from their mineral rights. Anti-fracking landowners (like myself) say that fracking (which will occur under my home) steals my mineral rights without my permission. I'm not against "their" profiting but not at my "expense". Whatever you hear about how "safe" fracking is, it is not. If it was so, why are there so many non-disclosure agreements for settlements? Mistakes are made. Corners are cut. Accidents are covered up. Corporations lie. People are bribed. My property is worthless without safe well water.

[enough]

5. Exactly. It doesn't become an issue till it comes over the horizon

into your own neighborhood. And by that time, it's already too late.

All those people who have no opinion are the frackers' best friends.

[Socialistlemur]

9. It all depends

I own property in Texas, near Dallas. They drilled a well under my house. The well's surface location is about four blocks away, and they seem to have done a pretty decent job hiding it. That piece of land will have an office building complex and stores built on it, and they plan to keep the site for wells right where it is. I bought the house speculating the new development would raise prices, and it sure has gone up. But the key was to have a well organized group make sure they didn't cause an eye sore and they paid their royalties and surface rights, plus we squeezed them for payments we used to offset real estate taxes. And they get the hell taxed out of them by the school district as well, so overall it's been a real plus. I think what you need is to get a lawyer and a consultant and get organized, and put a real negotiating team together to make the oil company bleed. They'll pay, it's just a business which happens to make a lot of money.

[rickford66]

11. not the issue

Royalty payments and eyesores are not the problem. Just over the border in PA private water wells have been permanently polluted. The gas companies delivered water for a while then stopped. We are 10 miles from city water so we and our neighbors are completely dependent on our wells. 5% of well casings fail immediately and the rest fail eventually. There are reports of accidents, equipment failures, spillage and just plain reckless activity weekly. Trucks carrying waste water have been found to have dumped it on deserted dirt roads instead of being taken to a treatment plant. And there are no reliable treatment plants anyway. The gas companies and their "land agents" lie about everything. If and when a landowner can win a suit in court, they are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements so that the gas companies can say there are no documented cases of water pollution. The pro-fracking landowners are well represents by attorneys. We're not worried that they will be taken advantage of. I haven't even addressed the livestock sickness and deaths at some farms. Imagine what the air AND water pollution does to our health.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Another issue is the number of earthquakes which occur where fracking has been done. I don't know

what the problem is but I bet they do not give this information when they are trying to lease the property and doubtful with their record on accepting responsibility for any damages caused they will be any happier to cover the cost of damage.

[marions ghost]

41. My sympathies

for your ultimate loss.

[Voice for Peace]

6. I thought so too, so this was a nice surprise

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/28/local/la-me-fracking-ban-20130529

New Mexico county first in nation to ban fracking to safeguard water

In acting to protect their water supply, the 5,000 residents of poor, conservative Mora County make it the first in the U.S. to ban fracking -- hydraulic fracturing for oil.

OCATE, N.M. — Sitting in the tidy living room of the home they built themselves, Sandra and Roger Alcon inventory what they see as the bounty of their lives: freedom, family, community, land, animals … and water.

"We've lived off the land for five generations," said Roger Alcon, 63, looking out on a northern New Mexico landscape of high mesas, ponderosa pines and black Angus cattle. "We have what we need. We've been very happy, living in peace."

Wells are the Alcons' only source of water. The same is true for everyone else in Mora County, which is why last month this poor, conservative ranching region of energy-rich New Mexico became the first county in the nation to pass an ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing, the controversial oil and gas extraction technique known as "fracking" that has compromised water quantity and quality in communities around the country.

"I don't want to destroy our water," Alcon said. "You can't drink oil."

In embracing the ban, landowners turned their back on potentially lucrative royalty payments from drilling on their property and joined in a groundswell of civic opposition to fracking that is rolling west from Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania in the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation.

Pittsburgh became the first U.S. city to outlaw fracking in November 2010 after it came to light that an energy company held a lease to drill under a beloved city cemetery.

Since then, more than a dozen cities in the East have passed similar ordinances.

The movement leapfrogged west last summer when the town of Las Vegas, N.M., took up the cause, calling for a halt to fracking until adequate regulations protecting public health are adopted.

(more at link)

[arachadillo]

7. Fracking redux

"39 percent of respondents had never heard of fracking, while another 13 percent didn’t know whether they had heard of it."

Those numbers seem to hold up with polling from about a year ago, although I can't find the source.

Another interesting and tangentially related issue is the fact that the word "fracking" sends a sort of negative connotation to the ears of the 50% of the population who have little knowledege of the process.

As a purely rhetorical tool, the continued use of the term fracking, tends to help the, well anti-fracking crowd, or the crowd that wants more fracking regulation etc.

On another note, the upcoming PA governor's race will provide a window into the near term future of fracking.

Whereas the previous D administration promoted fracking, they also promoted open access to the PA DEP records on their regulatory track record.

The current R administration shut down the open access, or regulatory transparency.

It's like the first time in a couple of generations that the people of Pennsylvania might not re-elect a Governor (normally PA people give both R and D governors two terms).

So, if the Ds win the PA governorship in PA, it's not the case that fracking will be stopped, it's more the case that there will once again be greater transparency in the fracking political economy of the state.

[Socialistlemur]

8. USA cut CO2 emissions due to shale gas production

The USA has cut CO2 emissions as it cuts coal usage, this is made possible by increased natural gas production and lower gas prices. The shale oil production has also helped, it creates jobs and it reduces oil imports. Most of what I read in these blogs is fairly silly, it seems the public is badly informed.

[sikofit3]

10. Yes and No

It may cut CO2 but it raises Methane and that is NOT good if not worse than CO2 emissions. Gas prices are lowered but only for a time because then they have too much reserves and decide to sell it overseas and then the prices go back up. These jobs you speak of are true but NOT for the local economies as a whole because the companies bring in their own workers from out of state. yes businesses will benefit but when these wells are tapped in a few years, they leave ghost towns and a crash in the local economy that turns out to be worse than before the gas companies came. Lastly, the environmental impacts and infrastructure impacts from the large trucks that drive back and forth 24 hours a day and spills etc are left for the local economy to pay to fix raising taxes and costing them more in the long run. It is like any boom like the gold rush etc.... These smiley campaigns are a short term farce with long lasting negative effects

[Socialistlemur]

13. You would have to show me some figures

I see you are more educated than most. But the methane emissions would have to be quantified. Gas prices are lower now. If they export a lot then of course they'll go up. It there's a limit because exports do have to compete in the world market. If I were the USA government I would limit exports to Mexico and Central America via pipelines, possibly one LNG plant to ship gas to Puerto Rico. Regarding the impact by trucks and so on, that was short lived when they drilled near my house. But the key is to negotiate payments and make sure the law covers charging these guys for new infrastructure, and of course road maintenance, which can be done via real estate taxes and road fees. Each well can be appraised at say $6 million, if you get 50 wells in a county and they install a plant the tax base just went up $350 million. I think many people think they have to lay over and play dead, but what you need is a good law firm and a consultant. Get them from Texas or Oklahoma where we know how to deal with oil companies and squeeze them. And like you said, in 20 to 30 years its gone, so it's important to save the money. The Norwegians do it, and they have a fund I think amounts to $700 billon USD for a few million Norwegians. They are smart.

[sikofit3]

14. Some figures

Methane emissions are quantifiable and are being quantified as we speak. LiDAR and remote sensing can quantify methane and other gases and they are measuring leaks around the drill sites and pipelines and methane leaking from melting permafrost. The numbers they are finding are alarming and methane is 20 times more of a heat trap in our atmosphere than CO2 even though its lifetime is shorter than CO2. Norway is smart but they also have a government that is willing to regulate these industries without loopholes and exemptions like we have and its just not going to happen here because the lobby and the gas and oil industry is too big. Obama even said it himself, they look at this as a national security issue and in fact it is also a check mate to Russia who is currently the largest NG producer and raises its prices to Europe at its whim. Germany and other countries are looking to import NG from us and so is Japan. There is a plant in Texas that can convert NG to LNG but it needs to be larger and updated to be able to fill the tankers to go to Europe which is their target market. I only know a lot about this issue because I am writing my Masters Thesis on the power of Home Rule laws and zoning boards in stopping Hydraulic Fracturing in communities. I could go on and on and on....

[Socialistlemur]

15. Do go on if you wish, it's interesting

I think you should keep the methane from permafrost out of the comments because its not related. The key is to show the actual methane volumes measured are going to cause more greenhouse gas effect than burning coal to generate the BTU or joules delivered by the overall gas production. Say methane is 20 times as powerful as co2 but it replaces more than 20x emissions when you consider say 0.1 % leaks. If you can work those numbers you have a point. Otherwise you are left with the other issues.

I myself think natural gas is indeed critical because it did help the country cut overall GHG emissions. And I do like to see the gas market in Europe a bit less dependent on Putin's Russia because I think they are fascists.

[limpyhobbler]

16. In order for shale gas to be good policy, I think someone would need to show not only that it

Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

cuts greenhouse gas emissions (taking into account carbon+methane+transportation+drilling+etc.), not only that, but also that it cuts emissions more than other possible energy investments that we could have made instead. The opportunity cost. For every million dollars that gets invested in shale gas, that's a million that could have gone into wind, solar, home insulation, battery research, or anything else.

Also we ought to take into account political power considerations and ask whom we are empowering when we pay money to gas companies. It's not in our long term interests to give those groups money and power, because they use it to influence energy policies and other policies in very negative ways, such as by funding climate change denial think tanks. They also pay money to politicians, and even to academics, to get their desired outcomes. The the only outcome they want is more profit - more money and more power - even at the expense of doing harm to the humans and our habitat. Therefore it is dangerous to increase the money and political power of gas companies. In fact we should be doing the opposite - trying to reign them in.

[sikofit3]

20. Absolutely

They are killing the alternative energy industry because NG has been so cheap it is not cost effective in the short term to go alternative, its a travesty they are so short sited and profit driven and we will pay dearly in the future for that. Some say that NG is a great to integrate with wind power to run the equipment when there is no wind and this could be possible but most studies have shown that it is not as necessary as they are trying to make it sound.

[Socialistlemur]

21. The market shows it

It's very simple, if gas competes (and it doesn't really matter if its shale gas or natural gas from sandstones, you focus too much on the rock and that's not really important), then it's a better choice. If you want to reduce carbon emissions then its more sensible to use a carbon tax. I don't have a problem with that because its not prescriptive. What I don't like is for a lobby to push the government to back a particular technology. This is a recipe for something similar to religious cultism. Take electric cars, as it turns out they are deadly for the environment because the electricity an electric car uses is mostly generated using coal.

So you are definitely going to convince me to back your ideas, that's for sure. The last thing we need is a high priesthood bureaucracy doing central planning as if the USA were the USSR.

You know, what I find really interesting is how you ignore a simple fact: gas usage has increased, the gas price is way down, and the USA is the only large country cutting carbon emissions thanks to gas. And you oppose it? Funny.

[limpyhobbler]

34. 1) Methane is leaking everywhere

2) It's not really clear to me that the net greenhouse effect from shale gas is so much less than the greenhouse effect of coal or oil. Once you add in the methane leakage

3) It shakes peoples houses. The town where my parents live, everyone can feel the earth shaking from the injection well. You must count effect on the humans as part of the cost.

4) Damage to buried municipal utilities. Some of the towns have very old water pipes and when you shake the earth you might damage the pipes. Then you will try to make us pay to fix it.

5) Even if shale gas is helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I'm not at all convinced that it is, in order for it to be a good policy, you must show that there is not a better choice for how to spend money. You have not demonstrated that investing in natural gas infrastructure reduces greenhouse gas emissions more than would an equal investment in something else. Such as battery research, solar panels, etc.

6) Your point about electric cars is nonsensical. You say "Take electric cars, as it turns out they are deadly for the environment because the electricity an electric car uses is mostly generated using coal. "

That's nonsense. The point of electric cars is that is separates the car from the fuel. Electricity can be generated from any of the methods.

[Socialistlemur]

45. Then add the methane leakage from coal

Coal releases methane. This is what causes coal mine explosions. I think you have a point...leakage does have to be factored in. As a matter of fact I guess we need to get on the horn and tell the IPCC they should look closely at this issue over the next 5 years, for AR6. But until the jury is in we really shouldn't be burning coal instead of gas.

[sikofit3]

17. I agree

Putin is a fascist but natural gas did not cut overall GHG emissions, methane is a powerful GHG emission see the links below and if you do not like those I have others. The University of Colorado and Texas are currently measuring the volume of methane leaked specifically from the oil and gas industry and those numbers have been worked! Even if I agree with you that it is nice to see Europe less dependent on Russian natural gas it should not be at the expense of our environment and the Earths. We are working towards a China like scenario where the powers at be rape our country for foreign profit... I don't know how you can really sit easily knowing that.


http://clu-in.org/programs/21m2/openpath/lidar/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/methane/lavelle-text
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/methane_leak_data_highlights__concerns_about_natural_gas_drilling/3730/

[Socialistlemur]

22. Interesting information but...

The Yale study says there's an environmental benefit if the leakage rate is less than 3.2 %. There are two studies which claim higher leak rates. And a paper by Levi, peer reviewed, which claims those two studies used the wrong methodology. There's another issue to consider: the gas soure isn't really important. In other words if its from shale of from sandstone it's still natural gas at the surface. So now you are dealing with all of the natural gas production in the world.

Being scientifically inclined, I'd say it would be useful to prioritize understanding the leak rates. The USA government says its 2.4 %. The article in the Washington Post you link says it can be cut to 1% (but I don't consider an article in mass media to be definitive). So we got: 3.2 % threshold, 2.4 % USA government guess, and 1% achievable target.

Thus my conclusion in this case is we should advocate careful measurement as well as strict regulations. We measure to make darned sure we stay below the damage limit, and we regulate to achieve the 1% target. Now let me tell you where I am from a practical standpoint on another issue: this gas happens to be explosive, so if they're allowing it to leak then they need to check to make sure they are not causing a danger to human life.

However, nothing you posted tells me I should not advocate natural gas a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And I'd like to see a supplemental study: what's the impact of methane adsorbed in coal seams when it's mined? I know methane explosions are a consideration when mining coal. How much do coal mines emit?

This is an interesting subject, even if we don't agree we are on to something useful.

[sikofit3]

25. Ok

Coal mining impact should be minimal at this point although not to be discounted since the whole industry has been saying how much cleaner NG is compared to coal and that because of the NG boom coal mining is in decline, Pennsylvania and West Virginia for example. Explosions are definitely an issue but the Yale article also discussed rates found up to 9% or at least over the 4% threshold and I have a pier reviewed study that agrees to this that I will find for you. The point is we are dealing with the global impacts of NG extraction using the HF method because the UK, Germany and Japan as well as China of all places are also looking into using HF to extract their own deposits which is scary to say the least. Quite honestly I can't believe a word the government says on this topic and many others, what a surprise being a member on this site, so that 2.4% might as well have come from the oil and gas industry itself which of whom low balls everything so everything looks rosy. You also discuss strict regulations etc... which in a perfect world would be a given and would be being done. I know there are some promising happenings in this area but the bottom line is that until the EPA and the government regulates this at the national level and lifts the exemptions that the Cheney and Bush energy department gave the industry your points are mute. The regulation is left to the states who are underfunded and under staffed and the rest of the regulations are left to the industry itself. The EPA has become a political agency and is not doing its job not just in this case but others. Phone calls from politicians have caused investigations into this industry to be stopped dead. I am coming from a stance that this fast pace of production should never have been allowed to happen with out testing, not after everything happens, and health studies need to be done. The medical community is begging for this because methane as a dissolved substance in drinking water has not been studied as to how it effects the body. Then you get into the "trade secrets" these companies claim so they don't have to release the chemical mixtures they use to frack these wells below aquifers and doctors have to sign confidentiality agreements to find out what these workers have been exposed to when they come to the ER unable to breathe. It is a nightmare scenario and I hope my state of NY does the right thing because I do not have the optimistic approach you have when it comes to the faith in humans and machines to be regulated and properly when you have the stakes this high in an industry that owns half of our politicians. Its just not going to happen.

[Socialistlemur]

28. I don't see why single out gas produced from shales

I think you have a logic bust. Gas leaks after it reaches the surface. I know the gas itself is exactly the same: CH4 or methane with minor amounts of other gases. Thus unless you can show the new facilities and pipelines are leaker (which I find a bit odd), then you would have to argue that fracturing shales leads to flow or returns of the fracturing fluids plus methane which is somehow released for a short period of time at high rates. If this is the case then all fracturing and fluid return procedures should be regulated to ensure the gas doesn't escape. I say all fracturing because the rock itself is irrelevant. There seems to be a mixing of issues which really need to be kept isolated. In other words the regulations need to cover all methane handling, processing and transport equipment, including all of the existing fields which produce from other rocks. That rock stays down in the ground, so the key is to focus on the stuff that comes out.

I also have a problem with the all or nothing approach some people take. It's not realistic and makes you lose leverage. I'd advise you to focus on reasonable regulations, making sure they do pay for impacts (say 120 %) to make sure. They need to post bonds to guarantee they'll clean up their crap and restore the land. And I think the counties and municipalities need a cut of state levied excise taxes. Charge them 25 cents per MMBTU, and deposit it in a "gas fund" for university scholarships. Don't let them spend it on a high school football stadium and junk like that.

[sikofit3]

30. Ok

I am trying not to have an all or nothing approach and I know that this industry will continue regardless of opinions and facts against it. I agree that impact fees should be large and I know Pennsylvania actually has these and they give municipalities money from a fund collected from the drillers in their areas that they can use for what ever they need. Pennsylvania is also giving universities the decision to allow drilling on campuses and collect money from them to go to education. However, I really would not be comfortable with my daughter going to a university with a drill pad on campus but I guess that is a choice at this level. I don't think new facilities and pipelines are leakier but there are just more of them so even if they aren't, the amount that are being erected catches up statistically to older method leaks. For instance, they flare the methane like in North Dakota since they are fracking for oil and don't have the infrastructure to store the gas that comes up and this is insane regardless of how less harmless after it is burned. The information is out there, through remote sensing and other hand held gas detection devices that methane is leaking when it returns up the well with the fluids. The rock is not irrelevant, this is also another contamination method through NORMs and they have to dispose of those rock shavings appropriately because they are contaminated with radiation. Again, you keep saying "should be regulated" but its not and its because most people have your argument, like as if we ask for more regulations and they are going to happen, they aren't and people are asking, even some in congress. The bottom line is if we didn't have lobbyists paying large sums to politicians from these companies and we had fracking regulated by the clean water act and the clean air act etc.... things could be different. What are you doing about getting these regulations you speak of? There IS a logical way to deal with this as there are with all types of industries but the oil and gas industry gets special treatment and you should know that being from Texas. I don't think I have a logic bust and I don't think that any of these issues should be kept isolated because they are all intertwined and I think compartmentalizing them is a mistake and has really been the diversion used by the industry to take the focus of the bigger issues so dots aren't connected. If I didn't know better I would take a guess you work or have worked in the industry and therefore these conversations are really a waste of time for both of us.

[Socialistlemur]

36. Oil producers shouldn't be allowed to vent or flare gas

I don't see why you wouldn't let your daughter go to school if they have a gas well on campus. The drilling rig doesn't stay anyway.

But moving on to the North Dakota oil producers, I think it's fairly simple to have a regulation forbidding the venting or flaring of gas unless its in really small volumes, say less than 1% of the heating value of what they do transport and sell. This makes them install equipment to deal with the problem. I'm sure they can do it. Or they can do an offset. They can capture CO2 and inject it underground. Or they can install a solar power plant somewhere to offset the emissions. I can think of several options.

[sikofit3]

44. Done

I see your agenda and its full of holes and to say it nicely we will have to agree to disagree. Your nonchalant responses and suggestions show your true colors and are not worthy of debate because you either don't really take this seriously, you have no idea what your talking about or your on these boards to disrupt truth and facts. I don't watch the MSM news because of these reasons and so I just can't continue because it is now becoming redundant and your not really offering anything but your opinion and lame suggestions on a serious topic that has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment and particularly to water resources. Good luck with your property in Texas.

[NickB79]

40. And NOAA is getting leakage rates of 9%!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/02/1388021/bridge-to-nowhere-noaa-confirms-high-methane-leakage-rate-up-to-9-from-gas-fields-gutting-climate-benefit/?mobile=nc

Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have reconfirmed earlier findings of high rates of methane leakage from natural gas fields. If these findings are replicated elsewhere, they would utterly vitiate the climate benefit of natural gas, even when used to switch off coal.

Indeed, if the previous findings — of 4% methane leakage over a Colorado gas field — were a bombshell, then the new measurements reported by the journal Nature are thermonuclear:

… the research team reported new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.

Yikes.

[caraher]

18. But it's not "say 0.1%" leaking

It turns out that there is a paucity of good measurements of the overall leak rate. EPA offers a WAG of 2.4% while the general belief is that you need to be under 1% to be assured that replacing other fossil fuels with natural gas is a winner in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

What does this chart show? The red line is WRI’s best current estimate of greenhouse-gas emissions (including methane) from all natural gas activities. The blue line shows WRI’s estimate of future emissions after recently proposed air-pollution regulations at fracking wells take effect. (The steps that drillers will have to take to reduce volatile organic compounds from these wells will also curb methane leaks.)

The purple line, meanwhile, shows estimated future emissions if the EPA and state agencies required just three new technologies throughout the natural-gas infrastructure: plunger lift systems,leak detection and repair, and low-bleed pneumatic devices. And,with an additional five technologies,the country could get down below hoped-for 1 percent methane leakage rate. That¹s the green line.

“What we show is that minimizing leakage is definitely possible with cost-effective technologies,” Bradbury says. “But this isn’t likely to happen on its own. Better policies are going to be necessary.”

It's telling that we see a full-court press for more fracking, both from industry and government, but crickets when it comes to implementing the aggressive measures needed to make sure it is actually climate-neutral or better.

[Socialistlemur]

23. See my response above.

And I don't go by general belief. General belief in the USA has included "information" such as a flood used by a supernatural being to drown all of humanity, the existence of WMDs in Iraq, and even that we were being invaded by Martians when Orson Wells made a radio show. I tend towards looking up facts and numbers. And I dont trust the media. Hell quite often I don't even trust peer reviewed material. My sister was doing research at an Ivy League graduate school and she found some colleagues had faked almost all of their data. And this was in biomedical research. Imagine what it must be like in other fields.

[limpyhobbler]

12. Probably because the news doesn't talk about it much. nt

[caraher]

19. The fight is mainly on the state level right now, where the fracking would actually occur

So in upstate New York you'll find passionate views on both sides (mostly representing the classic jobs vs. environment false choice). But if you're in a state that stands neither to see fracking-related jobs nor suffer fouled water supplies, the "meh" reaction is understandable (if short-sighted).

[Socialistlemur]

24. They burn fuel oil in NY, right?.

So the same people who oppose natural gas production in NY burn fuel oil? Or do they burn natural gas shipped from elsewhere? Or use electricity from a nuclear power plant? It's interesting how the full ramifications of choices are not properly understood.

[caraher]

26. Where I am now it's mostly fuel oil and propane

The chief concerns are more about water quality than climate. There's also significant wind development and arguments about that, too.

[Socialistlemur]

29. Exactly

We can't have 300+ million people living from thin air. The key is to understand that a greener infrastructure costs more. And this means building smaller houses and driving smaller vehicles. Got to move close to work and school and try to walk more.

But that's only going to happen when the energy costs more. So there's a serious need for honesty. I see too many people running around opposing this or that. I'd like for them to prepare a political platform they can use to win an election. I'm with Obama, I'd rather see the gas produced because I know the alternative in most of ny is fuel oil or electricity, and the marginal production is from coal. Somebody needs to look at the big picture and the president does.

[sikofit3]

31. So

Greener infrastructure does cost more in the short term but aren't we supposed to be looking ahead? We will run out of gas in what 40 to 50 years? Then what? Planners are trying to build more densely built communities with good public transportation networks and infrastructure but your saying to achieve this on a large scale energy costs must be higher to force this transition? So if that is so, wouldn't it make sense to build the expensive alternative energy infrastructure to force this in the short term so the long term is greener, cheaper and more community based than urban sprawl with cheap the cheap natural gas?

[Socialistlemur]

32. Can't force people to vote for you, can you?

Lets see....about 10 years ago I saw the US president. George Bush, lie about WMD in Iraq and invade that country. I opposed the war because I knew Bush was lying. But so were many other politicians and the media. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. And I remember the majority of the public supported it and gushed with patriotism and hubris.

So lets be realistic, in the USA it's possible to get people to back spending money on the dumbest enterprises, Iraq, the war on drugs, the space shuttle....those are good examples as far as I'm concerned. But to get people to move to a smaller house and etcetera you have to use a pricing mechanism. You can plan all you want, but without the price signal nobody is going to do anything. Trust me. So now figure out how to get elected and push for higher energy prices....tell them you'll tax them. Go sell that. Meanwhile there's no solution but to sit here and fret, I guess.

[sikofit3]

33. I agree with you!

I agree with everything you said except I was replying initially to your post where you said greener energy was too expensive. I know people don't like to be taxed and Americans are too short sighted and instant gratification motivated in general but if natural gas is being presented as a national security issue, securing an energy source, why can't alternative energy also be presented as a national security issue? If it is pushed on us like everything else then everyone would be for alternative energies over fossil fuel as you just so eloquently explained. There is no shortage of doomsday scenarios that are actually based in the real reality and not the manufactured reality to get people to open their eyes and accept these alternatives. Why isn't this done? Because the Oil and the Gas industry have bought our government. I know you know this and again, I agree with everything you just said. There is no solution I can see because the powers that be will never give up power.

[Socialistlemur]

35. Natural gas costs a lot less

Face it, natural gas costs less. And it does create jobs, two ways: the jobs getting the gas out, and the jobs created because gas and electricity cost less. So it's easy to say its strategic. On the other hand solar, wind and ethanol require subsidies or cost a lot more. There's a limit to what can be done before the economy stalls. Then there's unemployment and things go downhill. And I assure you whoever is in office will get voted out. Real life works this way.

[sikofit3]

37. Ughhh

Your killing me. I know natural gas costs less and creates jobs but don't be fooled by the strategy. This is not only being pushed because it costs less and creates jobs. Yes alternatives cost more at first, but not in the long run. The only limit of what can be done before an economy stalls is the limit by choosing which programs to support or not support but I don't see any of the big industries and corporations cutting anything from their spending except employee paychecks. The alternative industry also creates jobs I think there are plenty of examples around the world of successful alternative energy programs that economies benefit from. Since presidents only have two terms they will be voted out but I am not sure if you have been on this site very long as a lurker since you have few posts but this site is full of reasons why real life doesn't work the way it should with pretty good reasons why.

[Socialistlemur]

38. So why is it being pushed by the president?

Lets see, it costs less, it cuts carbon emissions and creates jobs. Renewables can't perform the same right now. And the president is focused on the November elections. I think it's more important to go for house seats than peddle solar power and attack an industry that's cutting unemployment.

I know I sound like a pain in the behind, but it seems to me there's too much single issue focusing in some minds, and there's a big picture to worry about. And tell me, why do you think renewables aren't competing? I think it's simple: it's too expensive.

[sikofit3]

39. Have you ever

heard or seen the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? While not the same thing it is just what happens when anything whether it is a good idea or not gets in the way of the current systems profits and those who own them whom are powerful and thats the bottom line. It is not about cost, it is about the right thing to do and our future. The president is pushing this not only as an energy source but as a global market competitor, which is understandable for our country, but not understandable when you talk about climate change and a finite energy source. They will always pump up what ever it is that puts us at an advantage on the global stage because its politics and NG is the newest biggest thing and we have it and so we can make money, and as we discussed, stick it to Russia. What you are saying is that this is a noble concept and it most likely is not. I do agree with you that the November elections are very important for us, but maybe after those he cans start going out on a limb and do what really needs to be done however popular it is. We need someone who isn't afraid to piss people off instead of politics as usual, but that probably won't happen either. I hear you say its too expensive but we can't afford NOT to go renewable if you look long term.

[marions ghost]

42. Well said.

"We can't afford NOT to go renewable."

[sikofit3]

43. Thank you!

[Socialistlemur]

46. You are entering John Kerry and Jimmy Carter territory

I don't see a need to get people upset and lose elections. Given the fact that elections are always close, it's evident the best strategy is to be close to the center and then steer it in a given direction. I guess we are on different pages because I don't think global warming is as bad as has been touted (I read the latest reports and I think caution is in order rather than a panicky approach). I also happen to have an engineering degree, and I see many proposed solutions to be non sense. Take electric cars. The energy balance on those things is terrible. And to make matters worse the marginal electricity supply for those vehicles comes from coal in many instances. They are a fat zero, advocated by environmentalists who don't know better, and companies in the business. I can mention other examples, like hydrogen and those silly wiggly worms for wave power. You see, most of you quote me material from MotherJones and suspect web sites. I'd rather see a solid business proposal with a well supported technology and cost estimate section. I'm still waiting to see one. I am 100 % sure something will come along, but rushing into things isn't practical.