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.'
... to the abyss. I emit personal methane in the general direction of anybody that didn't recognize this many moons ago. The solution to climate change isn't finding ever-more-exotic carbon to extact and burn - it's to stop burning carbon as soon as possible.
Don't worry. You are safe. Unless someone make time machines and travel back in time from 2350 to shoot you in the head for being stupid, you are just fine.
1. Tragedy of the commons
2. Short term gain, pain, not in our lifetimes!
So yes, New York WILL BE under water, in 2500. Not in 2050. Yes, Bangladesh, Neatherlands, Florida, and other places where BILLIONS of people live, WILL BE under water, in 2500, not in 2050.
In 2050, some islands will be dead. Some coastal marshes will be saturated with salt, and dead, despite what North Carolina laws says.
Anyway, you are *prime example* of why many people ignore Global Warming. It will not affect them drastically in their lifetimes. It will not even matter much in their children's lifetimes. Their grand kids? Well, who knows. But their grand-grand-grand-grand kids will probably start to curse 1900-2200 era.
And you are fucking lucky that people took proactive measure to curb ozone depletion. But that only had 40 year lead time, not 400+ year lead time. And no, in 200 years you will not be able to just turn on magic reverse global warming. Even if people in 100 years stop ALL CO2 emissions, the earth will just get warmer and warmer and warmer until new equilibrium is reached.
+12C global average means ice age
+14.5C global average means 1950s type environment
+15C is about current temperature.
with current emissions, we are aiming at +20C average? +25C? If 2C is different between ice age or not, the current *at least* +5C swing is going to be very significant. But not for a few centuries. So you can rest east and call it "bullshit"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Switching from oil and coal to natural gas is a positive step in reducing both carbon emissions and other pollutants. We should celebrate progress rather than grumbling that it doesn't solve humanity's problems forever and ever, because nothing ever will. If carbon tax is implemented, natural gas will be more economical than oil and eventually other technologies will be more economical than natural gas.
The funny thing about Sandy, is that the Capitol Weather Gang correctly predicted it about a week in advance, based on a very similar storm in 1878. We didn't quite as many SUVs nor coal plants back then.
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
The Salon article is wrong although the fault may be that of the interviewee. Bob Reiss asked Hansen what the view from his office would look like if his worst-case scenario from the paper he'd published not long before the interview were to come to pass.
That would have been the Scenario A from the 1988 "Global Climate Change as Forecast by GISS 3D Model" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
That scenario as described in the paper, assumes a CO2 doubling by 2030 but states that Scenario B's assumption of said doubling by 2060 is more likely.
Reiss details the conversation in a couple of his books but only named 2001's The Coming Storm when he corrected what he'd told to Salon, who never updated the online article.
Either way, there's still quite some time before Hansen's prediction can be definitively shown to have been wrong
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Classic Slashdot logical fallacy. One person makes a mistake, therefore all the other evidence and accurate predictions about climate change must also be wrong.
By that logic gravity must be wrong, because Whitehead's theory of gravitation turned out to be incorrect. Clearly airlines are just ripping us off because gravity isn't real. Just look up in the sky, there are clouds up there, they don't come crashing down to earth, right?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is why America has no friends. It's like you think polluting is your god given birthright and will continue to argue about it long after everyone else has accepted that it's a problem.
Remember that it's only cheap for you because you are pushing the cost on to other people.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC