MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, December 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 26.0° F  Light Snow
Collapse Photo Bar

It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:40 pm

Well a fracking miracle at least.

Enough to warm the hearts of remaining believers in global warming, CO2 pollution and other superstitions.

Plunge In CO2 Output Due To Natural Gas Fracking

The most underreported recent environmental story has been the dramatic decline in energy-related carbon emissions — nearly back to mid-1990s levels, and falling.

Maybe it's because that story just doesn't fit the left's mantra that traditional energy sources are destroying the environment.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) June energy report says that energy-related carbon dioxide fell to 5,473 million metric tons (MMT) in 2011.

That's down from a high of 6,020 MMT in 2007, and only a little above 1995's level of 5,314 MMT.

Better yet, emissions in the first quarter of 2012 fell at an even faster rate — down 7.5% from the first quarter of 2011 and 8.5% from the same time in 2010. If the rest of 2012 follows its first-quarter trend, we may see total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions drop to early-1990s levels.
<Snip>

Frack on, brothers!

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby ilikebeans » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:42 pm

Link please.

[edit] Nevermind, I found it:
Plunge In CO2 Output Due To Natural Gas Fracking

Appears in the Investors Business Daily, and written by one Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.

("The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy "think tank" based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems.")

Uh huh, that's even-handed and trustworthy. Despite the article title, even Matthews admits fracking isn't the whole story:
There are other factors, of course. For one, a slow economy tends to use less energy, especially oil.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby jman111 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:15 pm

For those who think natural gas fracking is the answer, a counterpoint:
However, Henn warns that replacing coal with natural gas is unlikely to help with the overall issue of pollution of greenhouse gases in the U.S.

“Part of the crux of the challenge is that natural gas can reduce emissions in the short term, but both the carbon logic and economic logic is flawed. There are methane leaks associated with the production and storage of natural gas,” Henn said.

According to Henn, in terms of environmental damage, every particle of methane is 32 times as bad as a particle of carbon dioxide, although it breaks down sooner and does not stay in the environment for as long.

“It’s worse than coal because methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas. That’s one concern, maybe this drop is slight, but it isn’t going to continue downward (when considering CO2 equivalents like methane). Those gains will plateau,” Henn said.
Atlanta Progressive News

Note: Not sure how "even-handed" or "trustworhy" statements by Mr Henn may be, as he is commmunications director for 350.org, an international environmental organizationm with the goal of building a global grassroots movement to raise awareness of anthropogenic climate change, to confront climate change denial, and to cut emissions of one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, in order to slow the rate of global warming.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby jman111 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:26 pm

Another interesting article
Ezra Klein discusses several scenarios, depending upon our willingness to stick with, or expand upon, some carbon-cutting measures.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby gargantua » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:34 pm

So it's another freaking miracle false alarm?

Damn, I'm getting tired of those.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby johnfajardohenry » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:59 am

jman111 wrote:Note: Not sure how "even-handed" or "trustworhy" statements by Mr Henn may be, as he is commmunications director for 350.org, an international environmental organizationm


Be interesting to know who funds this organization and what the funder's agendas are.

We've recently found that Sierra Club, which has been intense in its war on coal, gets about 25% of its total annual funding ($25,000,000 out of $100,000,000) from Chesapeake Gas which is the biggest (I think) fracking company.

Coca-Cola has long used polar bears in its marketing. It has also been sending big bucks to the WWF which is promoting polar bear die-off. (Although bear population has actually quadrupled since the 70's)

Cause or effect? Does Chesapeake fund the Sierra Club because they are against coal? Or is the Sierra Club against coal because it gets 25% of its funding from Chesapeake?

Would the Sierra Club ever come out strongly against fracking if they thought it would cost them 25% of their budget?

Ditto Coke and the WWF.

I don't know whether it is cause or effect. Whichever, it sure looks like a conflict of interest.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby Mean Scenester » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:30 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:We've recently found that Sierra Club, which has been intense in its war on coal, gets about 25% of its total annual funding ($25,000,000 out of $100,000,000) from Chesapeake Gas which is the biggest (I think) fracking company.

I was curious about this since you fail to cite a source. A quick Google query turned this up:

NYT Reporter Felicity Barringer wrote:The Sierra Club used the Chesapeake Energy money, donated mainly by the company’s chief executive from 2007 to 2010, for its Beyond Coal campaign to block new coal-fired power plants and shutter old ones. Carl Pope, then the club’s executive director, promoted natural gas as a cleaner “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future.

Immediately after the Time report surfaced on Feb. 2, the Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, acknowledged the donations and said he had decided to cut them off after he took over in 2010. In a blog post, he wrote that the group no longer viewed natural gas as a “kinder, gentler” energy source because of the environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing, a controversial gas-drilling process.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/scien ... ebate.html

That there's called a citation, JFH. You should embrace the idea. Apparently your "recent" information predates 2010. Might want to brush up on your research.

JFH wrote:Coca-Cola has long used polar bears in its marketing. It has also been sending big bucks to the WWF which is promoting polar bear die-off. (Although bear population has actually quadrupled since the 70's)

Okay, your turn. Where'd you get this info. Is there a sinister side to the WWF's "Adopt a polar bear" program I'm unaware of?

Cause or effect? Does Chesapeake fund the Sierra Club because they are against coal? Or is the Sierra Club against coal because it gets 25% of its funding from Chesapeake?

The question is moot.

Would the Sierra Club ever come out strongly against fracking if they thought it would cost them 25% of their budget?

Moot.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby green union terrace chair » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:08 pm

This is a goofy equivocation. Natural gas may be less of a pollutant than coal, but the manner in which it is extracted isn't related to the result of its consumption. And there are other ways to get it other than fracking.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2899
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

Re: It's a freaking miracle, I tells ya!

Postby johnfajardohenry » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:55 pm

Mean Scenester wrote:That there's called a citation, JFH. You should embrace the idea. Apparently your "recent" information predates 2010. Might want to brush up on your research.


Your link was dated Feb 13, 2012 which seems rather recent to me. It begins:

The recent disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency. (Emphasis added JRH)

The disclosure would seem to be recent. If this was all above board, why was it not disclosed at the time? Why do they only come out against fracking after they stop getting the Chesapeake money?

Cause or effect? Did they come out against fracking because they were no longer getting the $25 million? Or did they stop taking the $25 million so they could come out against fracking?

Did Sierra Club cut off the $25 million or did Chesapeake? In which case, was coming out against fracking retaliation?

I don't know and neither do you.

It is hardly moot, even now. It illustrates the problem of who is funding these groups and for what reasons. Who else is funding Sierra Club under the table, secretly? What is that funder's agenda. Is Sierra Club acting as their agent?

JFH wrote:Coca-Cola has long used polar bears in its marketing. It has also been sending big bucks to the WWF which is promoting polar bear die-off. (Although bear population has actually quadrupled since the 70's)

Okay, your turn. Where'd you get this info. Is there a sinister side to the WWF's "Adopt a polar bear" program I'm unaware of?


Which info? About Coca Cola funding the polar bears? This is pretty public. Not secret like the Chesapeake/Sierra Club money.

Here is the first hit I got searching +polar bears +wwf + Coca-cola:

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/ ... 24592.html

Latest News
WWF and The Coca-Cola Company Team Up to Protect Polar Bears

The Coca-Cola Company and World Wildlife Fund Partner to Protect the Polar Bear’s Home

For Release: Oct 25, 2011
<Snip>

Or do you mean polar bear population increasing. Well, I have had this discussion before many times and was going from memory rather than go look it up. (Ditto the Sierra Club issue, ditto Coca-Cola/WWF)

Anyway, since you insist, here is a citation:

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said:

"Although the population of bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today,"

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... -relevant/

I had remembered it going from about 6,000 to about 25,000 from the 70s to early 2000s. I don't see much point in trying to figure out at this date where I had gotten those numbers from. So it doubled instead of quadrupling. It still increased pretty significantly.

It did not decline.

It is forecast to decline, but the North Pole is forecast, as recently as 2007 or so to be completely ice free (no arctic ice cap at all) by August 2012. Not sure if that was the beginning or the end of August. Lots of melting needs to take place either way. (Have ANY of these end of the world predictions ever turned out to be true? Yet the gullible always seem to believe them)

My note here was not about polar bears or secret funding of the Sierra Club anyway. Those were merely a couple examples.

My note was about (possibly) compromised, either secretly or openly, environmental organizations

It was to ask whether Henn's anti-fracking organization was compromised. Who funds them and why? We should probably know that to know what their agenda is. Once we know where their money comes from we can decide how believable they are. (They may be perfectly legit and as pure as the driven snow. It could happen)

That issue, potential organizational compromise, is hardly moot.

Nor should it ever be.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm


Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar