Destroying America’s energy industry with phony methane issues
Started by Robert M
by Marita Noon • August 23, 2016
What is the “biggest unfinished business for the Obama administration?” According to a report from
Bill McKibben, the outspoken climate alarmist who calls for all fossil
fuels to be kept in the ground, it is “to establish tight rules on
methane emissions”—emissions that he blames on the “rapid spread of
fracking.”
McKibben
calls methane emissions a “disaster.” He claims “methane is much more
efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide” and that it does more
damage to the climate than coal. Methane, CH4, is the primary component
of natural gas.
To
buttress his anti-fracking argument, McKibben is selective on which
studies he cites. He starts with a paper from “Harvard researchers” that
shows increased methane emissions between 2002 and 2014 but doesn’t
pinpoint the source of the methane. He, then, relies heavily on “a
series of papers” from known fracking opponents: Cornell Scientists
Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea. Within his report, McKibben
mentions Howarth’s bias, but, I believe, intentionally never mentions
Ingraffea’s. Earlier this year, in sworn testimony, Ingraffea admitted he’d be lying if he said that every one of his papers on shale gas was “entirely objective.”
Because
of bias, McKibben claims to reach out to an “impeccably moderate
referee”: Dan Lashof. Mckibben then goes on to report on Lashof as
having been “in the inner circles of climate policy almost since it
began.” In addition to writing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and crafting Obama’s plan to cut “coal plant
pollution,” Lashof now serves as COO for billionaire Tom Steyer’s
NextGen Climate America. Lashof is hardly an “impeccably moderate
referee.
Because
McKibben goes to great lengths trying to appear balanced in his
conclusions, a casual reader of his report might think the research
cited is all there is and, therefore, agree with his cataclysmic views.
Fortunately, as a just-released paper makes clear, much more research
needs to be considered before cementing public policy, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency’s “tight rules on methane emissions.”
In the 28 peer-reviewed pages (with nearly 70 footnotes) of Bill McKibben’s terrifying disregard for fracking facts,
Isaac Orr, research fellow for energy and environment policy at The
Heartland Institute, states: “Although McKibben—a journalist, not a
scientist—accurately identifies methane as being exceptionally good at
capturing heat in Earth’s atmosphere, his ‘the-sky-is-falling’ analysis
is based on cherry-picking data useful to his cause, selectively
interpreting the results of other studies, ignoring contradicting data,
and failing to acknowledge the real uncertainties in our understanding
of how much methane is entering the atmosphere. In the end, methane
emissions aren’t nearly as terrifying as McKibben claims.”
In the Heartland Institute Policy Brief,
Orr explains why it has been difficult to achieve consistent readings
on methane emissions: “Tools have been developed only recently to
measure accurately methane emissions, with new and better equipment
progressively replacing less perfect methods.”
Throughout
the section on methodology, Orr draws attention to the results of the
various techniques—which he says shows “great uncertainty about how much
methane is entering the atmosphere, how much is produced by
oil-and-natural gas production, and how emissions can be managed in the
future.” He also points out that more than 75 studies examining methane
emissions from oil and gas systems have been done, yet “McKibben chose
an outdated study [Howarth/Ingraffea] that used unrealistic assumptions
and reached inaccurate conclusions.”
Orr
calls McKibben’s assertions that methane emissions are from the
oil-and-gas sector: “simplistic” and “inappropriate.” Regarding the
Harvard study, he explains: “Estimating the contributions from different
source types and regions is difficult because there are many different
sources of methane, and those sources overlap in the same spatial area.
For example, methane is produced naturally in wetlands. Methane also is
produced by agriculture through growing rice and raising livestock,
fast-growing activities in developing countries. This makes it difficult
to calculate exactly where methane is coming from and what sources
should be controlled.”
Based on McKibben’s approach, other sections of the Heartland report include: Methane and Global Warming, Repeating Gasland Falsehoods, and What’s the Fracking Alternative?
A
careful read of McKibben’s statements reveals that he is aware that his
plan will take away one of the few economic bright spots; that due to
higher priced electricity, manufacturing jobs will leave our shores; and
coal regulations will be unpalatable.
I
am often asked why the anti-fossil fuel crowd has so recently turned
against the decades-old technology of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking,
that has provided such economic and environmental benefits and has
become even safer due to ever-increasing advances. In his report,
McKibben states what is essentially the answer I often give: “One of the
nastiest side effects of the fracking boom, in fact, is that the
expansion of natural gas has undercut the market for renewables.” It has
upset the entire world-view of people like McKibben who’d banked on oil
and natural gas being scarce—and therefore expensive. In that paradigm,
wind and solar power would be the saviors. Now they are an expensive
redundancy.
Worrying
about whether methane emissions come from oil-and-gas activities, from
agriculture, such as cow flatulence or rice farming, or from naturally
occurring seeps may seem irrelevant to the average energy consumer’s
day. However, when you consider that long-term, expensive public policy
is being based on this topic, it is important to be informed fairly and
accurately—and to communicate with your elected officials accordingly.
Laura J Alcorn
If you are in the Dallas area, check out the Perot Museum, 3rd Floor for the oil/gas/fracking exhibits.
No comments:
Post a Comment