Maybe it’s time to lay it on the line about some of the extremist “environmentalist” opposition to fracking. The debate has become pitched because natural gas is a direct threat to the renewables industries; solar/wind/geothermal have become sacrosanct to many folks who wish these techniques were practical for large-scale production—in a way that they won’t be any time soon.
In the old days, the city bus that ran on natural gas was hailed as an eco-friendly option that might set an example for other municipalities. Now, we aren’t supposed to admit just how clean that energy burns—because under most circumstances, the most fashionable energy sources cannot compete with it.
Mark Green takes this on in the Energy Tomorrow blog, hosted by the API:
PoliticoPro reports that a New York state advisory panel on hydraulic fracturing is taking flak from some environmentalists despite the fact a majority of the committee’s members are . . . environmentalists.
There’s a simple explanation: Some of these folks just aren’t all that interested in helping a process that will bring more natural gas – clean-burning, abundant, affordable – to U.S. Here’s what David Braun, co-founder of United for Action, a New York-based anti-fracking group, told PoliticoPro:
The environmental groups that are involved are too interested in regulating rather than serving their general purpose, which is to defend our resources, defend the people and to not push these sorts of things through.
Braun refers to hydraulic fracturing, the drilling technology that’s revolutionizing access to a 100-year supply of natural gas while creating tens of thousands of jobs and fueling dramatic economic growth in parts of Pennsylvania, Texas and other states.
The guess here is that the concerns of Braun and others go deeper than hydraulic fracturing—that beneath opposition to fracking is considerable opposition to the idea that natural gas can be a game-changing energy source for the country.
That’s not the way environmentalists used to feel, of course. As Reason magazine’s Ronald Bailey noted in a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute in May, just a few years ago key movement figures were calling natural gas and shale gas the bridge to the “21st century energy economy” and the “new energy economy.”
But then that bridge actually took form. Improvements in hydraulic fracturing techniques meant billions of cubic feet of natural gas entering the energy equation—and some supporters of renewable started to feel threatened. The International Energy Agency’s “Golden Age of Gas” report issued last month outlined this fear:
The (Golden Age of Gas) Scenario assumes that support for renewables is maintained but, in a scenario in which gas is relatively cheap, there is a risk that governments’ resolve in this respect might waiver, pushing gas demand even higher than projected here.”
That’s a natural gas demand fed (and satisfied) by abundant, affordable development of accessible, secure U.S. resources. Good news for America, but bad news for those depending on high energy prices to help them with their agendas. Here is Earthworks’ Jennifer Krill in the March Earth Island Journal:
Every dollar spent on new natural gas wells, pipelines, processing and infrastructure does not bring us closer to wind, solar, and energy efficiency. Quite the opposite: It is taking us in the wrong direction by delaying the transition.
So the issue isn’t safe shale gas. It’s no shale gas, because an affordable, plentiful resource delays favored alternatives. And to be sure, shale gas or not, alternatives will still be developed. In fact, oil and natural gas companies are among the leaders in developing them.
The game-changing shale gas revolution just means that until these alternatives become cost effective we will have an abundant, secure and, as the IEA noted, a relatively inexpensive supply of energy to fuel our economy.
This the heart of the matter, and we will get nowhere in discussing it until we begin to confront that truth: some of the people involved in this debate are unwilling to contemplate increased use of any fossil-based fuel—no matter how plentiful or environmentally friendly it might be. After all, it could interfere with their fantasies. Those fantasies may involve denser urban planning, large-scale commuting by bicycle, or entire industries fueled by solar panels. But the impulse, and the disconnection from reality, are the same.
Significant numbers of fracking opponents are not arguing in good faith; to do so is too much of a threat to their world view.
- Excited
- Angry
- Not as Angry
- Bored
- Indifferent
- Sad
Meanwhile, in the real world:
“Electricity from wind farms in Texas climbed to 7.8 percent of the power consumed in the state last year, up from 6.2 percent in 2009, the state grid operator said in a report.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/11/us-utilities-ercot-idUSTRE70A7F720110111
Wow. You say 7.8%? Well then, why don’t we give up fossil fuels altogether?
You’re gonna need a whole lotta windmills. Oh, and a fossil-fuel or nuclear plant to pick up the slack when the wind dies down.
Japan has killed nuclear power.
And pumping vast amounts of poisonous liquids underground to shatter the Earth’s crust isn’t really an option outside the meth-addicted regions of America.
The worlds cleanest coal supply is still buried in the Utah wilderness that Clinton magically
transformed into a national monument, so his Indonesian campaign donors, who
own the only other supply of clean coal, could corner the world market, leaving
Americans with dirtier air, and more expensive energy, because OUR clean low-sulfur coal
cannot be accessed. Of course, Orin Hatch, John Huntsman, Mike Lee etc etc
will play the Sergeant Schulz card, if a ‘news’ droid should dare to ask impertinent questions, about a vast and criminally wasted natural resource.
GreenCon, roll on, don’t let a mere cliff slow you down!