Slashdot Mirror
The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse
Lasrick writes Energy expert H-Holger Rogner walks through the realities of the shale-gas boom, the 'game-changer' that has brought about a drop in energy prices and greatly reduced carbon emissions. But despite the positive impact on carbon emissions, Rogner points out that the cheap gas brought about by fracking shale may already be affecting investments into renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency by offering more attractive investment opportunities: 'At today's prices of $4 to $5 per million British thermal units, gas-fired electricity holds a definite competitive advantage over new nuclear construction and unsubsidized renewables.' But natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide. 'A much higher share of natural gas in the energy mix would eventually raise emissions again, especially if gas not only displaces coal but also non-fossil energy sources. Moreover, methane, the chief component of natural gas, is itself a heat-trapping greenhouse gas with 25 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. If total methane leakage—from drilling through end use—is greater than about 4 percent, that could negate any climate benefits of switching from coal and oil to gas.'
Troll my behind — respond giving examples to the contrary: a link to a dire prediction made 10-15-20 years ago, and a link showing it materializing within 10% of the predicted "bad"...
You really ought to include links when you say that kind of thing. Like this one, which quotes James Hansen in 1988, saying the West Side Highway in New York would be underwater. And " there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds." And " the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying 'Water by request only.”
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What kind of idiot thought we'd reduce climate change (which most scientists agree has something to do with carbon released from fossil fuel production) by switching to another fossil fuel that still emits carbon when burned?
The reasoning is that natural gas releases less carbon than coal, so if we switch from coal to natural gas, then we'll reduce climate change. I do not have the information necessary to determine if that is a correct line of reasoning or not.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Except it has been underwater recently: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n...
(during Sandy)
If I'm not mistaken, the water level in New York has risen a bit more than an inch since then (basing my estimate on global averages). Not enough to cover the highway.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Except it has been underwater recently: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n... [theepochtimes.com] (during Sandy)
TBH, if that's what you think he meant, you have the reading comprehension of a sixth grader. Or worse.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is no quote in that article, just recollections of a conversation that had occurred 30 years earlier, so it's not clear exactly what was said - but here is a picture of the highway in question, underwater in 2012 as predicted: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/p...
Seriously bro, does it bother you so much that a scientist made a prediction that didn't come true? Because if it does, you're in for a world of disappointment when you learn the truth....
It really doesn't matter. Scientists make predictions that don't come true, learn from them, and move on. That's how science works.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
and China's one child policy is probably the best long term action for the environment.
And yet, in most developed first world countries, birth rates have pretty much plateaued, or are on the way there. The US, China, Japan, Singapore, Russia, most of Europe - all currently below population sustaining birth rates at the moment. Check out this chart, sorted by fertility rates from lowest to highest. You can likely notice a clear trend between the upper portions of the chart and the lower regions.
Economics and education (especially of women) is the key, not police state policies that encroach on more of our personal liberties. We need to get everyone to first-world economic status as fast as we can, because then:
1) People will stop pumping out kids en mass, since at that point they're an economic liability, not an advantage, and
2) People will start caring more about the environment when they're not trying to figure out where they'll get they're next meal, or if they will have a roof over their heads tomorrow.
Seriously, exploding population was the boogieman twenty or thirty years ago. If we forecast using today's trends, it seems pretty likely that the world's population will most likely peak and then decline. Take a look at the actual data trends (the recent ones - and don't extrapolate linearly), then draw your own conclusions.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Well, natural gas/methane is CH4 - there are 4 hydrogens per carbon. As you start going to longer chained hydrocarbons, the ratio between hydrogen to carbon goes from 4:1 to 2:1 because adding another carbon adds only 2 more hydrogens. Octane, in gasoline, comprises of 8 carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms - 2 per carbon plus 2 more at the ends.
The Nazis were also strongly opposed to abortion* and homosexuality, and frequently spoke of the richness of German Christian heritage and declared themselves a Christian party. Sound a lot like the American right-wing?
Or - and here is a notion that many may find strange - could it be that the left-vs-right divide is rather artificial, and not all political parties can be neatly fitted into one of two buckets?
*Though they did make exceptions for their eugenics programs, abortion was otherwise strictly prohibited.
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).
Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.