AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low (http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/6b85546689744819aa7a64cd3ca6cee6/Article_2012-08-16-Gas%20Drilling-CO2%20Drop/id-4f3ad1f0f6ce407e86f7fa1942d69e8d)
By KEVIN BEGOS,


PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr. a climate expert at the University of Colorado

There's a more clear lesson here dude, the free market works. No need to keep the federal boot to the neck of corporations or make energy prices "necessarily skyrocket."

So why aren't we focusing more on our abundance of clean burning natural gas?

Obama and his mindless minion horde are going to argue this its not true.. that we are all going to die if we don't all stop breathing except of course the Illuminatti whom are above being subjected to any inconvienience.. Like Al Gore, And Barry himself.

One more proof that AGW is a load of hot air, But have they considered what will happen when we run out of gas, soon we will have peak gas just as we had peak oil, notice how no one speaks about that today. Put the economy back to work and build new coal fired power stations, beat the rush. Energy production is one industry they can't export

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low (http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/6b85546689744819aa7a64cd3ca6cee6/Article_2012-08-16-Gas%20Drilling-CO2%20Drop/id-4f3ad1f0f6ce407e86f7fa1942d69e8d)
By KEVIN BEGOS,



There's a more clear lesson here dude, the free market works. No need to keep the federal boot to the neck of corporations or make energy prices "necessarily skyrocket."

So why aren't we focusing more on our abundance of clean burning natural gas?



Is this THE Michael Mann of the "hockey stick" fame?

Tut

Yup the same 'hide the decline 'dude. I guess people still take what he says seriously. Penn State seems to be a magnet...

"Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide."
That's because the only thing that many of the world's leading climate scientists see is big government intervention as a solution . I doubt if they will go further and admit that the only reason for the natural gas boom is the technological advance application of horizontal drilling and fracking .

Enough of this fracking

No we need more. Obama's war on coal made it necessary that a replacement be found for America's energy needs. If it wasn't for private investment in the technology then nat. gas prices would be at the $8-10 range per thousand cubic ft. instead of the $2-3 range it is today. There would be no inexpensive alternative... we'd be looking overseas for more imported energy since the President's clean energy subisidies and tax revenue transfers have been an unmitigated failure resulting in bankruptcies and job layoffs. Meanwhile the gas boom has resulted in 100s of thousand new jobs ,and economic revivals in the states where it is permitted (North Dakota, Texas and Pennsylvania... word to NY ). .

Tom we have demonstrated here that fracking has consequences for ground water, therefore it is an unsafe technology, if we want gas we will just have to get it the usual way and if we want the energy in coal we already have the technology

Tom we have demonstrated here that fracking has consequences for ground water, therefore it is an unsafe technology, if we want gas we will just have to get it the usual way and if we want the energy in coal we already have the technology

Not a problem here...


Not only is this happening more than a mile beneath the surface, it’s also happening at a level that is separated from the closest points of the aquifer by a layer of impermeable rock three or four or five Empire State Buildings deep. “We couldn’t frack through that if we were trying to,” says one engineer working the Marcellus. “The idea that we could do so by accident is crazy. Not while we’re fracking with water and sand. Nukes, maybe, but not water and sand.”

The Truth about Fracking (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293086/truth-about-fracking-kevin-d-williamson)

CO2 emissions down to 20 year low...
There's a more clear lesson here dude, the free market works.Hello Steve:

That, or our environmental protection laws are working..

excon

No you just exported some more industries

Fracking Hazards Obscured in Failure to Disclose Wells - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/fracking-hazards-obscured-in-failure-to-disclose-wells.html)


Homeowners in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming have complained that their well water was contaminated with chemicals or methane gas from nearby frack jobs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year linked the method to contaminated drinking water in Pavilion, Wyoming; the agency is now retesting some of those findings. The EPA has little authority to regulate fracking; Congress in 2005 stripped it of most such power.

Science not just the free market will guide the states to energy efficiency and independence, safely, since the fed has basically been reduced to a lab agency that recommends but can't enforce. What you call free markets is a collaboration between states, feds, and corporations.

From your own site though we have this,


The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.

Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.

"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.

"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."

The evolution continues.


So why aren't we focusing more on our abundance of clean burning natural gas?

Because safety for humans has to be addressed along the way to profits, and energy viability. It's a process not an answer. Small steps because its not as safe as you think it is, nor do scientist. And you think the price of NG ain't going to go UP?

Well Tal there are some who just don't want to hear it, to them every innovation must be pursued with vigour, no matter what the impact. This is, in their mind, free enterprise at work.

They have forgotten that natural gas produces CO2 when burned, just as coal does. That it produces less is in its favour, but it still contributes to the problem

That's why it isn't the ultimate answer to a bigger problem, but its profitable and a viable option at this time. Coal like nuclear requires disposal of the waste bi products. Coal ash is a dangerous substance for the environment, and has poisoned entire communities. The real problem is will we let the profits slow the technology from advancing? Just as oil had us stuck for so long, will gas do the same?

I hope not.

Well Tal we found a use for fly ash, we put it in concrete, sort of solves the disposal problem, and no doubt we can solve the water pollution from fracking, we have to find a way of reclaiming the water. In a sense this is where government comes in, insisting on an industry dealing with its waste products, not just leaving the mess for someone else

They can easily filter and clean the water that has been contaminated from fracking. But it seems that government has to make them do it. Its those other chemicals, the ones that they don't or haven't disclosed it what the EPA is looking for. Each state regulates its own energy companies, so they will only do what the states make them do.

Investors don't like anything stupid like cleaning up its messes to interfere in its profits.

You see we are starting to see how this states administration argument is flawed in so many ways in an integrated federal economy. You have to decide whether you can allow your states to go every which way or they have to comply with what everyoneelse is doing. You can't have freedom for freedom's sake, either they are part of the country or they are not. We don't need to know what investors like, over here we have recently taken the view that if you want to dig it out of the ground in any form you will pay and you will clean up your mess, remediation it's called, perhaps a new concept for some, but it is part of the profit structure.

Some have said we will take our business elsewhere and we have said, do it

Hello Steve:

That, or our environmental protection laws are working..

excon

So you crucified enough businesses?

So you crucified enough businesses?Hello again, Steve:

See? I KNEW you liked throwing your trash into the air..

excon

Look at Kalifornistan... the Anti-business movement has been really effective there... how many cities have or are reaady to file for bakrupcy so far as a result of collapsing tax revenue?

Not sure how you got there from what I said, but no I still like clean air, clean water and I despite plastic bags flying from trees and Styrofoam cups blowing into my yard.

I was hinting that you once again missed the obvious. The OP quotes two climate change dudes and neither give credit to the environmental rules.


Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr. a climate expert at the University of Colorado

Cheap natural gas is the reason for the decline, not EPA rules.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr. a climate expert at the University of Colorado

So if someone finds a cheaper alternative product they will use it? That's brilliant. And it's exactly part of the plan.

So if someone finds a cheaper alternative product they will use it? That's brilliant. And it's exactly part of the plan.

Karma, there have been cheaper ways of producing energy for two hundred years and they haven't seen the light of day because it leads to lower corporate profits. Those who dig coal and drill oil don't want cheaper energy. They have locked up many innovations to shore up their industries. This is the day of the dinosaur and soon they will be extinct

Take off the tin foil hat . If there was an inexpensive ,abundant source of energy to replace oil, coal ,and gas it would already dominate the market.

No Tom it is you who need to take off the blinkers and understand how corrupt the capitalist system is

No Tom it is you who need to take off the blinkers and understand how corrupt the capitalist system is

And the Socialist or Communist system is better? Just look at CHina, Cuba and Russia as proof, they set the bar for Corrupt.

And the Socialist or Communist system is better? I don't think he was alluding to communism being a better system. I think he was referring to the fact that large corporations have their whole business model and large investments tied to the fossil fuels. You can bet they will do whatever they can to protect that... and they have very deep pockets and have purchased politicians that will vote their way.

I don't think he was alluding to communism being a better system. I think he was referring to the fact that large corporations have their whole business model and large investments tied to the fossil fuels. You can bet they will do whatever they can to protect that...and they have very deep pockets and have purchased politicians that will vote their way.

Not just big business... but small business, Mom and Pop stores, and nearly every private citizen does too.

I don't think he was alluding to communism being a better system. I think he was referring to the fact that large corporations have their whole business model and large investments tied to the fossil fuels. You can bet they will do whatever they can to protect that...and they have very deep pockets and have purchased politicians that will vote their way.

So what's the cheaper, feasible alternative?

So what's the cheaper, feasible alternative?
We'll likely never know.

Why is that?

I think Al Gore bought it and is sitting on it so he can get rich on his carbon credit scam.

The left has 'faith' that a cheaper ,safer ,abundant alternate is out there somewhere if they would just spend enough taxpayer money tilting at windmills . Someone invented a flux capacitor years ago and is keeping it on the shelf until the earth is sucked dry of all carbon based energy sources. Someone also perfected cold fusion. All that is needed is enough dilithium crystals .Just plug those crystals into the matter/anti-matter reactor and voilà ! We go warped !

Why is that?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/co2-emissions-down-20-year-low-694632-3.html#post3246813

LOL, you guys are funny. Until research and development delivers them a sure winner, big oil, and coal will drill baby drill, and dig baby dig.

What you really think BIG oil, and coal is going to spend profits on massive infrastructure and battery technology? Don't be silly.

Hell, they don't build bridges, roads, or rail for their own use, nor invest in education to get good employees. They let taxpayers do that, as they seek to increase visas for ready made import of cheap labor to take American jobs.

So we sit, dirty energy doesn't want to fund clean energy development through cap and trade. So they buy politicians to do the dirty work for them, and spend a lot of loot for commercials fighting change, and progress to keep adding to their bottom line. And still get taxpayer subsidies to do it!

Just like the church. But on a business level.

What you really think BIG oil, and coal is going to spend profits on massive infrastructure and battery technology? Don't be silly.

Of course they do... they are 1st and foremost energy companies . There is a tremendous amt of R&D work being done by the major energy companies on the alternate sources.

Of course they do ...they are 1st and foremost energy companies . No they are not, they are corporations my friend. Thus they are ONLY interested in making profits.

Of course profits are their motives and to increase their profits they need to grow their businesses in support of meeting global energy demands. And because they are about about profits, they have the capital necessary to make significant investments in promising technologies ,and to make them profitable too. That is why it is more likely that their investments in alternates will bear fruit long before all these government attempts.

No they are not, they are corporations my friend. Thus they are ONLY interested in making profits.

I wouldn't say ONLY, but again I'm just amazed that so many of you don't understand making profits is why they're in business. LOL, DUH!!

So why do my tax dollars go for corporate welfare? Oh that's right, rich guys NEED welfare, poor people don't. How could I not see the difference, DUH!

No they are not, they are corporations my friend. Thus they are ONLY interested in making profits.

Do you work for free or are you interested in making money? And if so how does that make you different from them?

Outside of the government or money laudering operations for crime organizations... what business on the planet ISN'T in business to make money? If they didn't how would they make payrol?

Do you work for free or are you interested in making money? And if so how does that make you different from them?Thanks for making my point.
The biggest part you missed is that I don't have the money it takes to buy political votes.

Thanks for making my point.
The biggest part you missed is that I don't have the money it takes to buy political votes.

How do you know... some politicians can be bought for cheap. Particularly the local ones.

Tried that! They laughed at my ten bucks and a case of beer! Corporations do more than make payroll. They also pay big bonuses and have golden parachutes. Don't try that at home.

Tried that! They laughed at my ten bucks and a case of beer!

Got to try it with a better brand of swill. They might not have liked that kind.

I think it was the TEN bucks they laughed at. Not enough ZEROES!

I think it was the TEN bucks they laughed at. Not enough ZEROES!

Favors work great... no paper trail to get them in trouble.

Quid-Pro-Quo

No wonder they drank the beer and left laughing! They flushed the piss trail though, and you don't want to know the favor.

No wonder they drank the beer and left laughing! They flushed the piss trail though, and you don't wanna know the favor.

Did it involve bear grease? They do that to all their constituents.

No mention of bear grease. But he did say grin and bear it! He saves the bear grease for those that vote for him. Could that be the difference between repubs and dems?

Bear Grease??

So why do my tax dollars go for corporate welfare?

You keep saying that as if it's a Republicans only thing. Democrats are just as guilty if not more, and just as corrupt if not more. I mean really, your guy pledged to ban lobbyists from the White House then hired the head of a lobbying firm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-embraces-k-street/2012/03/06/gIQAR4ChvR_story.html).

I made no reference to a party in my question so don't assume that's what I meant.


Originally Posted by talaniman
So why do my tax dollars go for corporate welfare?


Could that be the difference between repubs and dems?

Bear Grease??

No mention of bear grease. But he did say grin and bear it! He saves the bear grease for those that vote for him. Could that be the difference between repubs and dems?

Bear Grease???????????????????

It was a cartoon I read in Hustler magazine a LOT of years ago (like in the early 80's)... don't remember the punchline... but it involved two grizzly Adams types in a log cabin and something about Bear grease. Kind of never forgot it.

Since we all know that Larry Flynt is a far lefty... maybe he had some unaddressed tendencies back then.

So why do my tax dollars go for corporate welfare? Oh thats right, rich guys NEED welfare, poor people don't. How could I not see the difference, DUH!

You don't see me supporting government payouts and subsidies.

Is that how you grease the wheels of government over there? Bear Grease? How many grizzlies does it take to get things moving? Are there enough grizzlies in the country? No wonder the Polar Bear is an endangered species

is that how you grease the wheels of government over there? Bear Grease? how many grizzlies does it take to get things moving? Are there enough grizzlies in the country? no wonder the Polar Bear is an endangered species
Well being most Polar bears live in Canada... maybe that explains a lot about Canadian Politics... lord knows there must be some explanation.

I could explain it this way, Scotsmen and Frenchmen make a curious combination, you can't understand what the scots say and you can't understand what the french say, oi!