Behind closed doors on the paid speaking circuit, Hillary Clinton was far more candid than she has been in public about her prominent role as Secretary of State in exporting American-style hydraulic fracturing — the controversial, environmentally damaging technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.
“I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world,” she declared during a 2013 paid talk to Deutsche Bank, adding that she launched a new wing of the State Department devoted to the initiative.
During a paid speech in Canada the following year, Clinton touted her role in “accelerating” natural gas development in Europe, calling attention to Poland’s embrace of fracking as a positive step.
The contrast with the rhetoric Clinton has used on the campaign trail is striking. Clinton has rarely spoken in public of her role selling fracking abroad, and at times positioned herself as a skeptic of the controversial drilling technique. In the lead-up to the New York Democratic primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television advertisement that gave the impression that she has worked to discourage fracking.
The remarks were quoted in an attachment to one of the hacked emails belonging to campaign chairman John Podesta that were posted by WikiLeaks on Friday. Two days after we asked Clinton in Manchester, N.H., in January to release her Goldman Sachs transcripts, Clinton campaign deputy research director Carter Hutchinson reviewed all her paid speech transcripts in an 80-page report highlighting potential political fallout. It was sent to Podesta and other top campaign aides by Tony Carrk, Clinton’s research director. Carrk did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton’s decision to use fracking as a diplomatic tool has been chronicled by Mother Jones and The Intercept.
Earlier this year, we obtained emails from Clinton aides discussing plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether U.S. success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country.” The emails also revealed efforts to partner with energy companies such as Chevron and Marathon Oil.
Starting early in her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton traveled the globe encouraging foreign countries to adopt fracking technology. Clinton has both publicly and privately explained that she views fracking, under the right circumstances, as the most environmentally sound method of transitioning away from other fossil fuels such as oil and coal. She has also said that fracking can make the U.S. and other nations energy independent, a foreign policy goal that may weaken gas exporting countries such as Russia.
But in private, Clinton also asserted that there is a conspiracy of Russian-funded groups attempting to suppress fracking development. During a speech to a group in Canada called tinePublic, Clinton claimed that there are “phony environmental groups” that are “funded by the Russians to stand against” fracking.
It wasn’t clear which groups Clinton was referring to during those remarks. The Clinton campaign has not responded to a request for comment.
Photo: A drilling rig for shale gas owned by Chevron in Ksiezomierz, Poland.
Is there a direct link to the email containing this Clinton language: “I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world,” ? Wouldn’t make sense to link to it in the Wikileaks files?
Fracking is the second most polluting energy source we have, after coal ~ if we are to forestall accelerating global warming, we have to stop both coal and fracking, while focusing on pushing our nation towards 100% renewables in a hurry … only the Greens have this agenda in mind as a topmost issue … `“I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world,” Hillary Clinton declared during a 2013 paid talk to Deutsche Bank, adding that she launched a new wing of the State Department devoted to the initiative.`
I don’t get why this is all very newsworthy. Hasn’t ms C made it pretty clear that her position has changed since those days the emails talk about? Is the point here that she was late to change position? Here is what she said at the flint debate about it – that would be the most recent/relevant position:
Here’s how Clinton detailed her position during the March 6 debate in Flint, Michigan:
“I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.
So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.”
Phony environmental groups? I’ll tell you what’s phony: any claim by mainstream Democrats like Clinton to be even slightly progressive, or in this case, pro-environment.
What you are is another Trump right wing nut who believes global warming is a hoax.
I’m one of the many, many people who worked tirelessly on a purely volunteer basis to get fracking banned in NY. I think that Secretary Clinton needs to clarify her alleged statement re “phony” environmental groups. This statement is being widely quoted in conservative media as a way to discredit those of us who do not believe that fracked shale gas wells belong next to schools and homes, and who also do not want to fry the planet with fossil fuels. If Mrs. Clinton has been misquoted, she should say so. If she has not been misquoted, she should produce evidence to back up her claim that “phony” environmental groups were funded by Russia to work against fracking, and she should then list the specific groups involved and apologize to the rest of us. If she has no such evidence, she should apologize to all of the groups and individuals who worked to protect their homes, families, and the planet from the damage caused by shale fracking. Mrs. Clinton prides herself on her knowledge of the facts, so let’s have the facts in this case.
(aka) she’s a fracking demon..
Stein/Baraka2016 – only rational choice
All sentiment aside, reality to the forefront!
Naaaw, no one will think of Presiden Barack Obama when they see and hear “Stein/Baraka2016″
Of course not. Why would they and what difference does it make?
Consciously and subconsciously speaking, of course..
(aka)
C’mon man!
You’re a Trump lover.
Stein/Baraka2016 is the only way out of this madness and lies.
Very right- she fought for the Sioux in the dakota pipeline mess when no one else would and she knows about the methane leak problems and earthquakes happening because of fracking.
Jimmy is a paid Clinton troll, he posted the same exact comment on another fracking thread. And he doesn’t know anything about science, or else he would know about the Cornell and Harvard studies that show that methane remains in the air for 100 years and has also caused bad earthquakes in Oklahoma, causing the EPA to shut down a dozen fracking wells.
Nat gas is no bridge fuel- nuclear is. And Jimmy should learn some science before spouting off nonsense.
With the recent attention being brought to bear about the environmental dangers of fracking (including methane leaks and the huge rise in earthquakes in fracking states like Oklahoma), I figured I’d post some research about what’s been going on. Update to the below, OK recently had a 5.8 earthquake that caused the EPA to shut down a dozen fracking wells.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/03/56-magnitude-quake-rocks-oklahoma/89824558/
Oklahoma regulators on Saturday shut down 37 wastewater wells connected to oil and gas production after a magnitude-5.6 earthquake — matching the strongest quake ever to hit the state — jolted north-central Oklahoma.
Some parts of Oklahoma now match Northern California for the nation’s most shake-prone, and one Oklahoma region has a one-in-eight chance of a damaging quake in 2016, with other parts closer to one in 20.
The quake, centered in rural Pawnee County, could be felt over a seven-state area, the reported.
Gov. Mary Fallin said on Twitter that the shutdown was a “mandatory directive” covering 725 square miles in Osage County, just northwest of the quake’s epicenter. She said the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which ordered the shutdown, was in touch with the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the emergency measures.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/7/1467099/-Oklahoma-has-had-30-earthquakes-reported-in-the-last-19-hours
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/23/1438047/-Bloomberg-News-Fracking-related-earthquakes-in-Oklahoma-are-a-threat-to-national-security
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/28/1406578/-Oklahoma-fracking-wastewater-wells-shut-down-after-cluster-of-large-earthquakes
Oklahoma has had some considerable seismic activity the last few years. It has led to the closing of fracking wastewater wells throughout the state. Last night, a 4.7-magnitude quake, followed seconds later by a 4.8-magnitude quake, woke a few people up.
The 4.8-magnitude quake was the strongest in the Sooner State since the November 2011 swarm that included the state’s strongest on record, a 5.6-magnitude temblor in Prague on Nov. 6, 2011. It was the fourth strongest quake on record in Oklahoma, according to the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).
This was one of 30 separate earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater reported in Oklahoma within a 19-hour span from Wednesday evening through early Thursday afternoon. Twenty-seven of those, including the two strongest quakes mentioned above, were clustered in southern Woods County. Two others were reported in the far northern Oklahoma City metropolitan area east-northeast of Edmond, and a third occurred around midday Thursday near Perry in north-central Oklahoma.
That’s a lot of activity. Can it all be fracking related?
In 2015, 907 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater were reported in Oklahoma, up from 584 in 2014, according to KFOR-TV.
There were only 42 such earthquakes in the state in 2010 and 1 such tremor in 2005.
According to the USGS, there have been 30 such earthquakes already in 2016, the most recent being a preliminary magnitude-4.0 tremor near Fairview at 1:59 p.m. Thursday.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimates
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary
http://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.html
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/high-us-methane-emissions-blamed-on-leaks-harvard-fracking-study-show-fossil-fuel-industry-methane-leaks-far-higher-than-official-estimates-rings-methane-alarm-bells-in-australia
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/14/flaws-university-texas-methane-study-draw-criticism-scientists
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183.abstract
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150128/methane-leaks-gas-pipelines-far-exceed-official-estimates-harvard-study-finds
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/21/1416261112.full.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582904/methane-leaks-climate-benefit-fracking
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000265/full?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimates
Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary
http://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.html
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/high-us-methane-emissions-blamed-on-leaks-harvard-fracking-study-show-fossil-fuel-industry-methane-leaks-far-higher-than-official-estimates-rings-methane-alarm-bells-in-australia
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/14/flaws-university-texas-methane-study-draw-criticism-scientists
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183.abstract
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150128/methane-leaks-gas-pipelines-far-exceed-official-estimates-harvard-study-finds
Methane is leaking from natural gas infrastructure in Boston and the surrounding region at rates two to three times higher than government estimates, scientists at Harvard University and other institutions found.Published in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week, the researchers’ paper is the first peer-reviewed study that quantifies emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from natural gas installations in urban areas—including pipelines, storage terminals and power plants. The amount of methane lost over a year in the study area is worth $90 million, the authors wrote.The research, which was supported by federal and private funding, is part of an ongoing effort to assess methane emissions during natural gas production, transportation and consumption. The answers are crucial to understanding how the current shale gas boom contributes to climate change. Earlier this month, the White House issued the first national regulations to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.”I think it’s fair to get some solutions in place now,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor of environmental earth system science who was involved in the Boston study. Even if scientists don’t yet know where all the emissions are coming from, he said, it’s “perfectly reasonable” to start tackling known emission sources.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/21/1416261112.full.pdf+html?sid=3818ddcf-7d73-46af-8d4e-e8d718ff679c
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582904/methane-leaks-climate-benefit-fracking/Share5,852Tweet695
Satellite observations of huge oil and gas basins in East Texas and North Dakota confirm staggering 9 and 10 percent leakage rates of heat-trapping methane. “In conclusion,” researchers write, “at the current methane loss rates, a net climate benefit on all time frames owing to tapping unconventional resources in the analyzed tight formations is unlikely.”In short, fracking speeds up human-caused climate change, thanks to methane leaks alone. Remember, natural gas is mostly methane, (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. So even small leaks in the natural gas production and delivery system can have a large climate impact — enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas.Back in February, we reported that the climate will likely be ruined already well past most of our lifespans by the time natural gas has a net climate benefit. That was based on a study in Science called “Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems” reviewing more than 200 earlier studies. It concluded that natural gas leakage rates were about 5.4 percent.The new study used satellites to look at actual “methane emissions for two of the fastest growing production regions in the United States, the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations,” between the periods 2006–2008 and 2009–2011. They found leakages rates of 10.1 percent and 9.1 percent respectively!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000265/full?
Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.The research, which was reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The New York Times, was funded by a foundation created by the late George P. Mitchell, the wildcatter who first successfully drilled shale gas, so it would be hard to dismiss it as the work of environmentalists hell-bent on discrediting the oil and gas industry.The debate over the natural gas industry’s climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.The team of researchers echoed many of the findings of the Cornell researchers and described how the federal government’s official estimate proved far too low.“Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPAestimates,” said Adam Brandt, the lead author of the new report and an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”The new paper drew some praise from Dr. Robert Howarth, one of the Cornell scientists.“This study is one of many that confirms that EPA has been underestimating the extent of methane leakage from the natural gas industry, and substantially so,” Dr. Howarth wrote, adding that the estimates for methane leaks in his 2011 paper and the new report are “in excellent agreement.”In November, research led by Harvard University found that the leaks from the natural gas industry have been especially under-estimated. That study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, reported that methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction and oil refineries in some regions are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, and was one of the 200 included in Thursday’s Science study.EPA Estimes Far Off-TargetSo how did the EPA miss the mark by such a high margin?The EPA’s estimate depends in large part on calculations — take the amount of methane released by an average cow, and multiply it by the number of cattle nationwide. Make a similar guess for how much methane leaks from an average gas well. But this leaves out a broad variety of sources — leaking abandoned natural gas wells, broken valves and the like.Their numbers never jibed with findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, which approached the problem by taking measurements of methane and other gas levels from research flights and the tops of telecommunications towers.But while these types of measurements show how much methane is in the atmosphere, they don’t explain where that methane came from. So it was still difficult to figure out how much of that methane originated from the oil and gas industry.At times, EPA researchers went to oil and gas drilling sites to take measurements. But they relied on driller’s voluntary participation. For instance, one EPA study requested cooperation from 30 gas companies so they could measure emissions, but only six companies allowed the EPA on site.“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis in a press release. “Self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.” (DeSmog has previously reported on the problem of industry-selected well sites in similar research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.)Worse than Coal?There was, however, one important point that the news coverage so far missed and that deserves attention — a crucial point that could undermine entirely the notion that natural gas can serve as a“bridge fuel” to help the nation transition away from other, dirtier fossil fuels.In their press release, the team of researchers compared the climate effects of different fuels, like diesel and coal, against those of natural gas.They found that powering trucks or busses with natural gas made things worse.“Switching from diesel to natural gas, that’s not a good policy from a climate perspective” explained the study’s lead author, Adam R. Brandt, an assistant professor in the Department of Energy Resources at Stanford, calling into question a policy backed by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address.The researchers also described the effects of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity — concluding that coal is worse for the climate in some cases. “Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows,” the team wrote in a press release.But they failed to address the climate impacts of natural gas over a shorter period — the decades when the effects of methane are at their most potent.“What is strange about this paper is how they interpret methane emissions: they only look at electricity, and they only consider the global warming potential of methane at the 100-year time frame,” said Dr. Howarth. Howarth’s 2011 Cornell study reviewed all uses of gas, noting that electricity is only roughly 30% of use in the US, and describing both a 20- and a 100-year time frame.The choice of time-frame is vital because methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, so impact shifts over time. “The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from last fall – their first update on the global situation since 2007 – clearly states that looking only at the 100 year time frame is arbitrary, and one should also consider shorter time frames, including a 10-year time frame,” Dr. Howarth pointed out.Another paper,published in Science in 2012, explains why it’s so important to look at the shorter time frames.Unless methane is controlled, the planet will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over the next 17 to 35 years, and that’s even if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled. That kind of a temperature rise could potentially shift the climate of our planet into runaway feedback of further global warming.“By only looking at the 100 year time frame and only looking at electricity production, this new paper is biasing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and coal in favor of natural gas being low,” said Dr. Howarth, “and by a huge amount, three to four to perhaps five fold.”Dr. Howarth’s colleague, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, raised a similar complaint.“Once again, there is a stubborn use of the 100-year impact of methane on global warming, a factor about 30 times that of CO2,” Dr. Ingraffea told Climate Central, adding that there is no scientific justification to use the 100-year time window.“That is a policy decision, perhaps based on faulty understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves, perhaps based on wishful thinking,” he said.For its part, the oil and gas industry seems very aware of the policy implications of this major new research and is already pushing back against any increased oversight of its operations.“Given that producers are voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times in an interview about the new study, “additional regulations are not necessary.
The above are why politicians supporting this environmentally unfriendly process are highly concerning.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimates
Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?
A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.
Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.
The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.
Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?
A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.
Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.
The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.
The research, which was reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The New York Times, was funded by a foundation created by the late George P. Mitchell, the wildcatterwho first successfully drilled shale gas, so it would be hard to dismiss it as the work of environmentalists hell-bent on discrediting the oil and gas industry.
The debate over the natural gas industry’s climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.
Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.
The team of researchers echoed many of the findings of the Cornell researchers and described how the federal government’s official estimate proved far too low.
“Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPAestimates,” said Adam Brandt, the lead author of the new report and an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”
The new paper drew some praise from Dr. Robert Howarth, one of the Cornell scientists.
“This study is one of many that confirms that EPA has been underestimating the extent of methane leakage from the natural gas industry, and substantially so,” Dr. Howarth wrote, adding that the estimates for methane leaks in his 2011 paper and the new report are “in excellent agreement.”
In November, research led by Harvard University found that the leaks from the natural gas industry have been especially under-estimated. That study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, reported that methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction and oil refineries in some regions are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, and was one of the 200 included in Thursday’s Science study.
EPA Estimes Far Off-Target
So how did the EPA miss the mark by such a high margin?
The EPA’s estimate depends in large part on calculations — take the amount of methane released by an average cow, and multiply it by the number of cattle nationwide. Make a similar guess for how much methane leaks from an average gas well. But this leaves out a broad variety of sources — leaking abandoned natural gas wells, broken valves and the like.
Their numbers never jibed with findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, which approached the problem by taking measurements of methane and other gas levels from research flights and the tops of telecommunications towers.
But while these types of measurements show how much methane is in the atmosphere, they don’t explain where that methane came from. So it was still difficult to figure out how much of that methane originated from the oil and gas industry.
At times, EPA researchers went to oil and gas drilling sites to take measurements. But they relied on driller’s voluntary participation. For instance, one EPA study requested cooperation from 30 gas companies so they could measure emissions, but only six companies allowed the EPA on site.
“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis in a press release. “Self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.” (DeSmog has previously reported on the problem of industry-selected well sites in similar research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.)
Worse than Coal?
There was, however, one important point that the news coverage so far missed and that deserves attention — a crucial point that could undermine entirely the notion that natural gas can serve as a“bridge fuel” to help the nation transition away from other, dirtier fossil fuels.
In their press release, the team of researchers compared the climate effects of different fuels, like diesel and coal, against those of natural gas.
They found that powering trucks or busses with natural gas made things worse.
“Switching from diesel to natural gas, that’s not a good policy from a climate perspective” explained the study’s lead author, Adam R. Brandt, an assistant professor in the Department of Energy Resources at Stanford, calling into question a policy backed by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address.
The researchers also described the effects of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity — concluding that coal is worse for the climate in some cases. “Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows,” the team wrote in a press release.
But they failed to address the climate impacts of natural gas over a shorter period — the decades when the effects of methane are at their most potent.
“What is strange about this paper is how they interpret methane emissions: they only look at electricity, and they only consider the global warming potential of methane at the 100-year time frame,” said Dr. Howarth. Howarth’s 2011 Cornell study reviewed all uses of gas, noting that electricity is only roughly 30% of use in the US, and describing both a 20- and a 100-year time frame.
The choice of time-frame is vital because methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, so impact shifts over time. “The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from last fall – their first update on the global situation since 2007 – clearly states that looking only at the 100 year time frame is arbitrary, and one should also consider shorter time frames, including a 10-year time frame,” Dr. Howarth pointed out.
Another paper,published in Science in 2012, explains why it’s so important to look at the shorter time frames.
Unless methane is controlled, the planet will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over the next 17 to 35 years, and that’s even if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled. That kind of a temperature rise could potentially shift the climate of our planet into runaway feedback of further global warming.
“By only looking at the 100 year time frame and only looking at electricity production, this new paper is biasing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and coal in favor of natural gas being low,” said Dr. Howarth, “and by a huge amount, three to four to perhaps five fold.”
Dr. Howarth’s colleague, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, raised a similar complaint.
“Once again, there is a stubborn use of the 100-year impact of methane on global warming, a factor about 30 times that of CO2,” Dr. Ingraffea told Climate Central, adding that there is no scientific justification to use the 100-year time window.
“That is a policy decision, perhaps based on faulty understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves, perhaps based on wishful thinking,” he said.
For its part, the oil and gas industry seems very aware of the policy implications of this major new research and is already pushing back against any increased oversight of its operations.
“Given that producers are voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times in an interview about the new study, “additional regulations are not necessary.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary
http://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America's-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.html
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/high-us-methane-emissions-blamed-on-leaks-harvard-fracking-study-show-fossil-fuel-industry-methane-leaks-far-higher-than-official-estimates-rings-methane-alarm-bells-in-australia
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/14/flaws-university-texas-methane-study-draw-criticism-scientists
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183.abstract
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150128/methane-leaks-gas-pipelines-far-exceed-official-estimates-harvard-study-finds
Methane is leaking from natural gas infrastructure in Boston and the surrounding region at rates two to three times higher than government estimates, scientists at Harvard University and other institutions found.
Published in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week, the researchers’ paper is the first peer-reviewed study that quantifies emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from natural gas installations in urban areas—including pipelines, storage terminals and power plants. The amount of methane lost over a year in the study area is worth $90 million, the authors wrote.
The research, which was supported by federal and private funding, is part of an ongoing effort to assess methane emissions during natural gas production, transportation and consumption. The answers are crucial to understanding how the current shale gas boom contributes to climate change. Earlier this month, the White House issued the first national regulations to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
“I think it’s fair to get some solutions in place now,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor of environmental earth system science who was involved in the Boston study. Even if scientists don’t yet know where all the emissions are coming from, he said, it’s “perfectly reasonable” to start tackling known emission sources.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/21/1416261112.full.pdf+html?sid=3818ddcf-7d73-46af-8d4e-e8d718ff679c
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582904/methane-leaks-climate-benefit-fracking/
Share5,852Tweet695
Satellite observations of huge oil and gas basins in East Texas and North Dakota confirm staggering 9 and 10 percent leakage rates of heat-trapping methane. “In conclusion,” researchers write, “at the current methane loss rates, a net climate benefit on all time frames owing to tapping unconventional resources in the analyzed tight formations is unlikely.”
In short, fracking speeds up human-caused climate change, thanks to methane leaks alone. Remember, natural gas is mostly methane, (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. So even small leaks in the natural gas production and delivery system can have a large climate impact — enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas.
Back in February, we reported that the climate will likely be ruined already well past most of our lifespans by the time natural gas has a net climate benefit. That was based on a study in Science called “Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems” reviewing more than 200 earlier studies. It concluded that natural gas leakage rates were about 5.4 percent.
The new study used satellites to look at actual “methane emissions for two of the fastest growing production regions in the United States, the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations,” between the periods 2006–2008 and 2009–2011. They found leakages rates of 10.1 percent and 9.1 percent respectively!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000265/full
Once again, Mr. Fang exposes what you will not read anywhere else.
People actually would vote for this evil corrupt twit?
Never have we had such a stark choice for voting this year,one,Donald Trump,American patriot,vs,HRC,the enemies chosen stooge.
Spot on but for Trump being a Patriot. Obviously he is a bully, a coward, and a pig that doesn’t pay his bills.
When you were describing someone as a bully, coward, and pig, I thought for sure you were talking about Hillary. He certainly pays his bills. And as for someone taking legitimate tax deductions, that’s perfectly legal, although a concept most liberals struggle with mightily…
I”m sure the elites (on both sides of the aisle…you seem to be incapable of breaking out of the duopoly) appreciate your support of those “legit” tax breaks.
These days anything is legal. Just ask John Yoo about torture. Moral or ethical? Well, that’s not really up to the legal eagles to decide, is it?
Oh yea, paying bills DT style. Stiff investors / lenders by declaring bankruptcy and then claim a tax deduction. The American way …. profit off of the misfortune of others (even if you’ve been the cause of other’s misfortune).
Mr. Fang
“……..Starting early in her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton traveled the globe encouraging foreign countries to adopt fracking technology. Clinton has both publicly and privately explained that she views fracking, under the right circumstances, as the most environmentally sound method of transitioning away from other fossil fuels such as oil and coal. She has also said that fracking can make the U.S. and other nations energy independent, a foreign policy goal that may weaken gas exporting countries such as Russia…….”
The difference between Trump and HRC is that Trump is a chronic liar and Hillary is a calculated liar. However, in this case, fracking could be an important tool to help Europe become more energy independent (Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2014):
“……..Europe gets roughly 30% of its gas from Russia, and much of that is piped through Ukraine………Moscow has used Europe’s dependence on Russian oil as an economic weapon. Over the last decade it has cut off or slowed gas supplies to a range of countries when a dispute flared over pricing or politics. Again this week Mr. Putin said he was increasing the price for gas sold to Ukraine now that the new pro-Europe government in Kiev has spurned his affections…….”.
It is this energy dependence which in part has prevented the EU from taking a stronger stand on economic sanctions directed at Russia for their illegal annexation of Crimea and military support for Ukrainian rebels in eastern Ukraine.
But, what are succeeding generations going to do for natural gas around the time the fracking fluids are permeating the drinking water supply? We don’t have a clue of the value of natural gas in 200 or 2,000 years. It is criminal to continue to extract it at great environmental cost and burn it in wanton waste.
Lee Fang chooses the picture Boris Johnson must have been referring to when he compared her to ‘A sadistic nurse in a mental hospital’.
Look at the state of this world we live in. So many of us want a solution to the problems we face as humans and as citizens. Our focus on the many parts of this plutocrat behemoth that is speedily growing ever stronger has not yet resulted in us finding the soft joints that we might be able to dismantle it. The fact that almost all of our energy is dedicated solely to online expressions of discontent is a disturbing sign that we are approaching the point of complete hopelessness. We have become comfortable with our agony. It no longer seems like pain though we still feel it as such. What is the solution? How do the citizens, the rightful owners of civilization, take back the power that is absolutely and rightfully ours from those to whom we have given power?
#ESIAH
Huh, who woulda thunkit?
Great work Lee!
I agree w/ Greg Gutfeld: HRC will be the next prez.
Clinton Cash the full movie :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoMsh
Ah yes, Clinton Cash, the faux documentary funded by Breitbart. Totally reliable source. Not to mention the author of the book has admitted he has no evidence of any of the things covered in the film.
Next.
the controversial, environmentally damaging technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.
No – it’s not. Get a frigging grip!
I believe Hillary Clinton is a much better liar than Donald Trump. Her lies are more like “maybe she isn’t lying”. And sophisticated. His lies are too transparent and dumb.
Agreed! She also has no shame in smiling ear-to-ear with each lie.
At least, with trump’s transparent lies, we’ve got a chance.
The State Department’s mandate is to carry out the policies of the current administration in the White House, so it has been promoting fracking worldwide as an energy panacea, even though the bloom is starting to wear off, as the realization settles in that shale fracking is not economical. State’s Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR – http://www.state.gov/e/enr/) is still under the illusion that the U.S. has become an “energy superpower” due to shale fracking, even as the oil price collapse is bankrupting more shale drillers. Welcome to the attention-deficit-disorder capital of the world, the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus…
Fracking chemicals also cause erosion of pipes, not to mention the increase of earthquakes. These devastasting side effects are just going to continue as the duopoly keeps spitting out increasingly horrendous psychopaths.
Think that climate change, fracking, pipelines, fossil fuels, corruption, wars, police brutality, injustice, etc. aren’t intricately linked? Unfortunately, the psychopaths use the propaganda machine and horrible policies already in place, to keep the most unfortunate struggling in the dark.
We’re running out of time.
Think that climate change, fracking, pipelines, fossil fuels, corruption, wars, police brutality, injustice and population, affluence/consumption and technology aren’t intricately linked?
We are definitely sunning out of time. Or worse.
I respectfully disagre, we already have more than enough resources/food to cover the population, and then some. The problem is in the distribution, again, by those fewer percentages, who pull the strings.
Unfortunately, and in addition, a huge percentage of those resources (grain, water, forests) are stripped to be used to make profits for the few who own animal agriculture, rather than people (along with the fossil fuel industry).
The people with the highest populations are demonized and suffer the most, not b/c we don’t have the resources, but b/c, the oligarchs are the ones who make horrible decisions; based on pure greed.
I DO, however, strongly agree with your assertion, “affluence/consumption” play a major role in our destruction: the overconsumption of the most affluent.
* overconsumption BY the most affluent
I was reading your comments and agreed with them until I came upon this BS. Now I see that you’re one of those anti-environmental leftist overpopulation deniers, which is as bad or worse than being a climate change denier. Let me lay it out for you:
1. Humans are by far not the only ones living on our planet. Every species has an equal right to live and thrive, and humans have no right to destroy or otherwise alter ecosystems or any portions of them. And even if you immorally don’t give a damn about other species, we can’t live without them. Causing species to become extinct or even extirpated, and causing destruction of ecosystems is not only totally immoral, it’s self-destructive.
2. Humans and their infrastructure, including agriculture, now occupy fully half of the terrestrial land on Earth. The large majority of the remainder is “rocks and ice,” in other words uninhabitable by the vast majority of species. So basically, there are so many humans that the other species have virtually nowhere to live.
3. In order to be healthy, ecosystems need at least 50,000 acres of wilderness with wildlife corridors between wilderness areas to prevent inbreeding among the larger species. With anywhere near this many people, having this much wilderness is simply not possible. Remember, it’s not just the actual people, it’s also their agriculture and other infrastructure. If humans all lived as hunter-gatherers, there could be more of us without destroying life on Earth, but still nowhere near 7+ billion.
Human overpopulation is the biggest problem on our planet; the only thing even close is human overconsumption. If we don’t greatly reduce our numbers, all other environmental efforts will be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And I’ll circumvent the hysterical BS before you mention it: you don’t reduce human population by killing people, you do it with birth control, which in turn is done by educating an empowering women and girls.
if we dont make moves to enforce 1 child per couple, we are done for.
there are other problems but overpop is a sure fire destroyer.
I respectfully disagree (please see above). However, IMO, if wikileaks and whistlebloweres continue to create transparency, and more people keep the discussion and the comments growing (like yourself) that’s our best weaponry against poverty.
We can keep the momentum of awareness/activism going, to see the bigger picture; and hopefully, we won’t be “done for.”
Remember the electric car movement virtually destroyed by Obombas call for OPEC to lower prices,in order to hurt the Russian economy?
What a bunch of clowns.
Not exactly on-point, but something of which anyone discussing fracking should be aware:
This is exactly on point, but few are paying attention.
I live for Lee Fang’s investigative pieces. I know that there are several of you working on these revelatory emails. Today is a stellar day for TI.
Thank you for these excellent stories.
I so agree.
David Sirota:
(*my chuckle)
Perhaps by inducing Poland etc. to experiment with new fracking techniques and technology, she is thoughtfully trying to export Larry Summers’ ” Africa is under- polluted” meme to eastern Europe.
Hillary’s Russian thing is just the funniest. She also gets to attack regular people this way, something she is unusually into. (Trump is the great permission giver: since he does it YAY!!! liberal get to do it too, it’s the best)
Remember how George W. used to let surrogates make the ridiculous unprovable conspiratorial assertions? Such as the swift boat thing?
I wish someone would just say “Listen, fuck the Russians, you mendacious ass – this is about your corruption, not theirs.”
i wish 2
What is their corruption,Russia?
They don’t celebrate sexual diversity?They still believe in religion as a social force for good?They refuse to countenance foreign NGOs corrupting their politics?They like Putin?They hate phony provocateur posers,like Pussy Riot.?(oh,that word!)
I say f*ck the zionists ,our true and malevolent enemy.
The idea is to take the focus off the real issues. Complaining about Russia hacking emails instead of addressing what the emails said accomplished this quite nicely.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton has refused to show her emails because it displays years of “private face” that highly conflicts with her political “public face”, favors the top 1% at the expense of the people and often the country.
Her “foundation” was just a private auction. She lied, she cheated, she deceived, she manipulated, she sold the interest of the people, she attacked viciously, covertly… Like her husband himself stated about her health “she’s been working like a demon”. I really liked Bernie and I really like Stein but sorry guys got to do do everything I can to stop that demon.
Mrs. Clinton’s victory over the Republicans appears to be complete. She has now adopted all of their positions, with the possible exception of locker room banter, which so far seems to be curiously absent from the e-mails. If there are any Republicans reading the comments, I’d be interested to know if they feel vindicated at being right all along, or wistful that they’ve served their purpose and have no further function. I suspect they are too busy pledging allegiance to Mrs. Clinton to participate in the comments section. So because they aren’t here to take a bow, I’d like to salute them in absentia for helping to pave the way for Mrs. Clinton.
Yes, the plot to discredit anti-establishmentarianism by associating it with Trump’s goofiness and Sanders’ capitulation has been a resounding success – so much so that even with the worst dregs of neoconservative and Republican circles endorsing Clinton, the absence of any truly progressive direction whatever in government is hardly noticed.
I’m not sure anymore if this makes the establishment very brilliant or the populace very stupid. I’m inclined to think both are stupid, since there is no planet B, and the establishment candidates for the highest office are so psychotic they each thought they presidentially won last night’s inane debate about gossip.
What progressive direction – the one on paper?
Jesuschristalmighty, how do we reverse the inevitable damage to our planet and our people after another four years of ignoring and minimizing Climate Change?
The economic changes are too stressful to Wall Street – this is just some of the crap that happens when you let manufacturing die and when moving money globally is how US creates a greater percentage of its wealth.
Oh, Maisie. The willing and ignorant public have less concern about these kinds of issues, I am afraid. The establishment has made sure that people have to work hard to learn about anything other than what is in their immediate circle. They have acknowledged, encouraged, and reinforced the instant-gratification-ness of Americans. Keep ’em stupid and pliant and it’s easier to govern.
I think this is why some of us get get so angry about NSA spying and others do not.
During the debate, Mrs. Clinton practically promised World War III with Russia. Nuclear winter will help negate global warming. The darkest hour is just before the dawn.
I forgot to look for the light at the end of this dark and dank tunnel. Thank you for reminding me Sr Mussolini; I found it near impossible to get my head out of the gutter.
I meant to include that your The establishment has made sure that people have to work hard to learn about anything other than what is in their immediate circle. They have acknowledged, encouraged, and reinforced the instant-gratification-ness of Americans. Keep ’em stupid and pliant and it’s easier to govern is perfectly put.
Breaking: early bird specials on lead-lined ski wear.
We’ve seen from Obama how flowery words of progressive sentiment from Democrats don’t mean a damn thing, really – but Clinton isn’t even going to pretend that much, preferring to be seen as a moderate centrist throwing out mere crumbs of promise to the leftwingers she despises.
it makes the populace very ignorant and creates an acceptance of stupid.
BUT the establishment is never never brilliant, they are simply crafty and also very very stupid because truly smart people find no need to be crafty and devious. Establishment imbeciles rely on ignorance because they are not smart enuf nor good enuf to do otherwise.
the axiom would go something like stupid people need power to compete. The takaway being the dumber they are the more power they need.
Oh yes,Maisie the exceptionalist,dissing the American voter.Sheesh,we now have a doppleganger to go with our resident exceptionalist,our humble narrator.
Trumps goofiness,sheesh,in a world of goofs,he’s Einstein.
Brilliant as usual!!
Unfortunately, it’s not really a joke. Here’s a very plausible scenario for descent into global nuclear war:
1) Hillary Clinton orders a no-fly zone over Aleppo in Syria, after authorizing transfer of surface-to-air missiles to Al Qaeda forces in Syria.
2) A Russian jet is shot down, and in response, Russia threatens all U.S. forces in Syria with retaliation.
3) The U.S., in response, prepares for cruise missile strikes on Syrian airbases and government centers from ships in the Mediterranean.
4) Russian ships and American ships in the Mediterranean enter into direct conflict; several ships are destroyed and global military forces go on high alert.
5) Nuclear missiles on submarines are placed on highest alert; nuclear retaliation protocols go into effect; the response time is just as little as 10 minutes for submarine nuclear launches. Under such conditions, nuclear launch controllers just have a few minutes to respond to launch warnings.
6) Someone sees a radar blip; a nuclear missile is launched, and a major Russian or America city is vaporized by a nuclear weapon. Retaliation follows retaliation in a matter of minutes, and civilization as we know it goes up in flames.
Ronald Reagan, who said “this may be the generation that will face Armageddon”, may have been right. Gorbachev is saying the same thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/gorbachev-warns-world-is-at-dangerous-point-amid-us-russian-face/
Think it can’t happen? This is what the neocon war pigs, in particular Hillary Clinton, are pushing the world into. This is no joke; not the least bit funny. All it would take is one little ‘accident’.
i would interject an item as 4b which has Russia taking out the NATO nuke sites in Poland, Romania, Turkey and probably Israel. What happens after that? If it is a stand-down, i imagine that both Russia and China would be arming countries south of US border including Cuba.
All because Hellary wants to prove she’s a man or some crazed war hero.
i urge the youth of America to see DR. STRANGELOVE to get a better idea of how people are shaped by their jobs. It ought be required viewing in public school.
“i urge the youth of America to see DR. STRANGELOVE to get a better idea of how people are shaped by their jobs. It ought be required viewing in public school.”
Fail Safe should be viewed first. It is the scary version of Strangelove. You always should watch comedy last.
Try and think of it from the point of view of some other species. Just as Homo Sapiens is stretching the world’s ecosystem to the limit and about to cross the threshold of irreversible climate change, it solves the problem by killing itself. I can imagine the other species laughing nervously and saying, “Wow, Homo Sapiens really had me worried there for a moment”.
Let’s see, there’s still hope and change in malaria and zika.
Reason #526 I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.
Is there something wrong in employing solar to transition away from natural gas and other fossil fuels? My guess is what’s wrong is solar companies don’t/won’t pay Ms. Clinton 6 figure speaking fees or donate millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Extremely frustrating when Hillary touted, again, the Obama doctrine of natural gas as being the bridge-fuel to our future energy independence. This (and most) neoliberal policies over the past 30 years were and continue to be an utter capitulation to profits.
In the 70’s I worked weatherizing low income homes in rural areas, and there was much more support for alternative fuels at that time; unfortunately, while the political will was more apparent then, the technology to transition away from fossil fuels wasn’t up to the task.
One of Podesta’s emails released by Wikileaks mentioned the lack of pressure being felt by the Hillary camp to move in a more progressive direction on energy policy, which, simply put, means that there is no pressure being placed on those who define Hillary’s positions: her financial backers.
And even when the majority of the electorate wants clean, renewable energy that isn’t a pipe dream any more, as is the case now – if the financial backers of our elected officials don’t sanction it, it simply will not happen.
Lying Hellary works for the oil interests. Coal is not oil. 0Bama and Hellary have put the coal Industry in receivership with the FABLE of global warming. That allows the US oil industry to compete, due to FRACKING, with the ME oil Barons.
She is a paid whore (through the Clinton Foundation) for the ME oil countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Hellary is an actual ENEMY of the USA!
The article is good; the headline, like the others on this subject (Russian-supplied hacked data to Wikileaks to help Trump), is not. Because nothing in the article actually implies any ‘wrongdoing’.
ALL US cabinet officers try to sell American-developed technology (and it was Federally-developed R&D that developed most of it, starting in the 1970s). This is especially true when it moves in the direction of, shall we say, goodness; ie. getting more natural gas to serve as a transition fuel away from (mainly) coal (and some oil) over the next 3 decades. As someone who voted for Bernie, I did so In Spite Of his support for ‘banning’ fracking, no matter what; because that’s done. As Clinton pointed out during the debates, we need to get the natural gas leakage down, and stopped the earthquakes and water poisoning – all legitimate issues that R&D can really help with (and already is, in cases like leakage). Blindly ‘banning’ it – without any ‘and then what?’ specific plan, is pretty dumb.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with lying through your teeth for political advantage, that’s just smart business practice. A private vs. a public position. Who doesn’t love a two-faced dishonest con artist? Isn’t that who we want as our leader? Trust is overrated.
You can’t possibly be that naïve.
1. Got evidence, shill fer Hill?
2. Why do you want us to pay more attention to the alleged sources and/or routing of the information that to the information itself? Seems to me that if your candidate had nothing to hide she’d have noting to worry about, right?
3. You blew your cover in the first sentence. No reason to deal with the rest of the post, beyond the reminder: Public/Private.
What are three things you agreed with Bernie about during the primaries but not Hillary Clinton?
Perhaps some further R&D could fix the problems with fracking, but you admit those problems are known. There is no excuse for deploying a knowingly harmful technology. Poisoning the water supply will kill us off much sooner than climate change, it is grossly irresponsible for the government to promote it, and criminally exploitive for companies to be doing it.
Regarding methane leakage, if ya don’t make holes, ya don’t get “leaks”.
Additionally, natural gas is a carbon based fuel, one of whose end products, after combustion, is precisely the same greenhouse effect CO2 as that arising from burning oil or coal.
http://www.whatischemistry.unina.it/en/combust.html
A “transition” from one carbon based fuel to another, in a world just shy of boiling, is not a transition.
Something like “in our attempts to obtain clean water, we’re transitioning from the badly maligned arsenic toxicity, to a more homey folks-friendly lead toxicity. Its a transition.”
( with a hearty shout out to “folks got tortured” Obama)
What’s “dumb” is poisoning and wrecking the Earth with things like fracking. Like most modern humans, your priorities are backward.
CrookdClintons think because they are FPotusa couple they get do do whatever they want.
Wrong!
You are National Disgrace and Shame!!
Clintonemail.com to talk to criminals. No other reason.
Everyday brings more lies.
You PW the Dems who are children.
So, here we have the absolute truth coming out:
A Clinton campaign email released as part of the Wikileaks data dump earlier today talks about “the need to maintain political power by producing “an unaware and compliant citizenry”.
http://www.infowars.com/clinton-campaign-email-outlines-effort-to-produce-an-unaware-and-compliant-citizenry/
I have been inclined to vote for Jill Stein here in California, but the more I see of the recent Wikileaks dumps and consider the absolute corruption of the DNC we all witnessed before the convention in July, I am now inclined to vote for Donald J. Trump as the biggest possible “F You!” I can muster.
For the next debate Mrs. Clinton should be asked, “Do you agree that an “unaware and compliant citizenry” is the best for our country?”
Few participants here are going to be eager to follow an Alex Jones/Infowars link.
Here’s the message on the WikiLeaks site:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
Infowars has an agenda(just what I have no real clue),and is sensationalist,but there is more truth there than any MSM outlet by far.
Take it to Goldman Sachs.
“Infowars…more truth there than any MSM outlet by far.”
HAHAHAH. Thanks, now I have to clean up the coffee I just spit all over my screen. You might have a career in comedy…. or propaganda.
1000 thank yous
this you point to is the smoking gun for the SHEEPLE makers.
another 1000 thank yous
The Clintons are utter tools of Wall Street interests and consolidated wealth; if they hadn’t been picked up and promoted by the likes of Buffett and the Walmarts, Hillary would be flogging real estate back in Arkansas while Bill stayed home and watched Internet porn; that’s just a basic reality. GW Bush was no different, he’d have been a used car salesman in Houston or a greeter at Walmarts if not for the accident of birth and his Saudi supporters; ditto Clinton on that latter issue.
What this means is what comes out of Hillary’s mouth is just a script written by others, i.e. Wall Street interests, who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and don’t want to see their markets destroyed by renewable energy – and this is the same for all countries with fossil fuel reserves, be it the United States or Saudi Arabia or Russia or Venezuela, the heads of government all want to keep selling fossil fuels to world markets; just like slave dealers of ages past, they don’t give a shit about the consequences as long as wealth and power flow their way.
The only countries with truly robust renewable energy programs are those without fossil fuels for export, i.e. China and Germany and Japan, and, no surprise, they’re world leaders in renewable energy production, regardless of their political ideology, and not because they’re morally superior, but out of sheer necessity. In contrast, independent renewable energy producers in the U.S. are lagging behind because of sabotage by crooked politicians and the fossil fuel interests who control them.
What you see with the American plutocrats is ongoing support for fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – and since Warren Buffett, Clinton leash-holder, has huge fossil fuel investments, you’ll see little change in energy under Clinton; Trump is no different, and neither was Obama. You won’t see Putin in Russia encouraging renewable energy in Europe, either, any more than the Saudi Royals would. Heroin dealers are not known for financing addict recovery programs, are they?
So, who is getting the shaft in all these deals? American citizens breathing filthy polluted air and drinking foul polluted water and stuck with high energy bills for electricity and transportation (because renewables really are cheaper if you strip out all the fossil fuel subsidies from tax breaks to foreign oil wars), that’s who.
Sure, switching from fossil fuels to renewables is difficult – we need a competent manager to run a transition like this; two-faced con artists are not going to do it. Incidentally, the only rational policy question at the debate was about this energy issue, from this guy Ken Bone, who would probably make a far superior President than either Trump or Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSq7OaFAip0
#KenBoneForPresident!
Yup, some random guy plucked out of the audience is almost certain to make a better leader than either of the two atrocious con artists on the platform. That’s how low we’ve fallen as a nation; but all is not lost; as Ken Bone shows, we still have the potential to rise from the ashes.
That’s simply not true. Germany is very progressive compared to the U.S., and made a strong commitment to renewables after Fukushima. Germany has a lot of coal, so it could just use that. So this is moral superiority, at least to some extent.
We are allowing others to KILL OUR PLANET…. HOME.
death from poisoned waters supplies from irrgated crops.
death from poisoned water supplies from wells.
death from rainwater thru polluted air.
death from ripped up forests that keep the soil just right.
death from increasing piles of waste of all times.
death from radiation and pollutants into the oceans and into the food chain and into the fish we eat.
death from killing our planet.
…. fra cking queen…..hal loween….. 2 faced fra cking queen…
~abba
Having the time of her life…
Fracking causes earthquakes and pollutes water tables, and also Fracking is a form of climate-change denial
(My emphasis)
yep. Hellary is a real mother fracker.
And here I thought she was grabbing’ (pax trump) the planet by the balls…