Spin overtaking facts in Marcellus Shale debate

[dtotire]

Spin overtaking facts in Marcellus Shale debate

By KEVIN BEGOS

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Some insist Marcellus Shale natural gas is a huge economic boom for America, while others are certain it's an environmental catastrophe.

Gas drilling from the Marcellus pollutes groundwater, or it never pollutes groundwater. It's cleaner than coal or oil, except that it's dirty. It provides a boost to hard-hit rural economies; but then again, maybe it doesn't.

The one point of agreement? Scientists say advocates on both sides increasingly spin every shred of research to fit their own views, and ignore the bigger picture.

Consider Duke University biologist Rob Jackson, who has degrees in chemical engineering, ecology, and statistics, and worked for Dow Chemical Co. for four years. He co-authored a report that went viral in May, showing that residential water wells near drilling operations in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale had disturbingly high rates of methane onntamination.

more:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAS_DRILLING_SCIENCE_AND_SPIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-26-17-33-06

[hedgehog]

1. Does it make any sense at all to invest in new fossil fuels in the face of glabal climate change?

[Angry Dragon]

2. Follow the money

[phantom power]

3. oooh, both sides! spinning! big picture!

did they think that up all by themselves?
:eyes:


One of these "sides" is a wealthy consortium of giant fossil fuel companies who want to extract a resource for as much profit, and with as little regulation, as possible.

The other "side" is a bunch of citizens who are worried about being able to drink their water.

And here's the "big picture":

[txlibdem]

4. Oh, c'mon. You're just a complainer

Everybody should be able to do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA

[FBaggins]

5. You left off a big group.

The tens of millions of households that would like to heat their homes and buy their electricity at low prices.

That drives governmental decision making more than corporate profits or a few people with water supply issues.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. …or the “possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects”

http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?

…

Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO₂ fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

…

Phase-out of coal emissions by 2030 (Fig. 6) keeps maximum CO₂ close to 400 ppm, depending on oil and gas reserves and reserve growth. IPCC reserves assume that half of readily extractable oil has already been used (Figs. 6, S12). EIA |80| estimates (Fig. S12) have larger reserves and reserve growth. Even if EIA estimates are accurate, the IPCC case remains valid if the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground, via a rising price on carbon emissions that discourages remote exploration and environmental regulations that place some areas off-limit. If IPCC gas reserves (Fig. S12) are underestimated, the IPCC case in Fig. (6) remains valid if the additional gas reserves are used at facilities where CO₂ is captured.

…

I think it’s notable that the AP story did not mention any words like “warming,” “climate,” or “greenhouse.”

[FBaggins]

7. You're absolutely right.

The combined influence of tens of millions of people who don't want to pay more... and don't want to dim a few lights... and don't want to turn up their AC temperature in the summer (etc.etc.etc.) most certainly trumps the long-term necessity to avoid damaging the global environemnt.

But we've seen that for many decades now. It comes as no surprise.

It does, however, simplify the answer to the original question. How on earth do we expect people who can't look at the "big picture" impact of energy decisions to be swayed by the negative impact on a tiny minority with local environmental impacts? After all, this is hardly a new thing related specifically to fracking. We've been drilling through water tables and/or gas deposits for many many decades. A few contaminated water supplies has never stopped us before.