More fracking great news

April 23rd, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

The SMH reports:

Against all expectations, US emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, since peaking in 2007, have fallen by 12 per cent as of 2012, back to 1995 levels. The primary reason, in a word, is “”. Or, in 11 words: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover deposits of shale gas.

Yet the Greens wanted it banned here. This is the difference between being pro-environment (which many people are) and anti-science (which the Greens often are).

One can virtually prove that shale gas has been the major influence driving the fall in US emissions. Just ten years ago, the natural-gas industry was so sure that domestic production was reaching its limit that it made large investments in terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). Yet fracking has increased supply so rapidly that these facilities are now being converted to export LNG.

Natural gas emits only half as much CO2 as coal, and occupies a rapidly increasing share of electricity generation – up 37 per cent since 2007, while coal’s share has plummeted by 25 per cent. Indeed, natural gas has drawn close to coal as the number one source of US power.

Half the emissions of coal? If the Greens honestly thought climate change was the planet’s biggest threat, they’d be promoting fracking.

Tags:

56 Responses to “More fracking great news”

  1. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Since 2003 the price of natural gas in NZ has been the primary driver of increasing residential electricity prices (Maui reserves were redetermined in the early 2000s and prices went up). Consumers use electricity in the peak, and peak electricity is generated thermally, predominantly by gas, which sets the price.

    If the Greens actually want to get the price of electricity down they could try opening up natural gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (7,522 comments) says:

    Yes, fraccing has always been a great benefit to energy production, but why then do the National Party say-

    regulation may be too light-handed

    a social licence to operate is yet to be earned.

    The phrase “social licence” is left wing language.

    Propaganda that pre-supposes guilt.

    This is why the Nats are hopeless. They only react to left wing ideas rather than be pro-active with their own.

    There are already thousands of regulations governing oil exploration. Just leave things be.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (7,522 comments) says:

    “If the Greens actually want to get the price of electricity down”

    For god’s sake are you so ignorant of the Marxist agenda that you seriously think this could ever be one of their objectives?

    The Watermelons do not want cheap energy now and have never wanted cheap energy in the past and will never want cheap energy in the future.

    And they are proud of this objective and actively advocate for it.

    Why the hell would anyone think the Watermelons would ever do anything to help lower the cost of energy???

    Give me strength.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    No you can’t build that here.

    No, you can’t build one of THOSE here.

    You’re not building those over HERE are you?

    We want wind farms. We don’t want to know about the cost. It’s AN INVESTMENT IN OUR CHILDRENS’ FUTURE.

    WAH – why is electricity so expensive in New Zealand?

    It’s those damn private companies, you can’t trust any of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mobile Michael (410 comments) says:

    The Greens also vehemently oppose water meters. They would rather millionaires with swimming pools and massive gardens get charged the same as the little old lady who lives alone in a unit with a tiny patch of grass. So Wellingtonians (who don’t have meters) use as twice as much water as metered Aucklanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    Hilarious Farrer. Greens anti-science. Bill Enlgish has recently refused to commit to Climate change being anthropogenic, all to satisfy their farming/business base! That’s called being apocalyptically anti-science. NOt to mention the way they dismiss out of hand the science around effluent run-off from dairy. The attacks on Greens by the right are starting to sound desperate. Worried?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PBJ83 , you can do your bit to stop energy production by not using any of it or the things made by it. You and your ilk can all strip naked and slink off into the deep forrest. Then you will not be a hypocrite. Remember Gaia will provide.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. alloytoo (431 comments) says:

    The greens are dynamically apposed to anything sensible, practical solutions are beyond their remit.

    That is why they are the laughing stock of serious scientists and professional conservationists.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (7,584 comments) says:

    So suddenly the Greens are out of favour?

    Last week we were treated to Mojo Madness as the next best thing after free enterprise.

    And John Key who supported the looniest bit of legislation this country has ever seen is now descibing his co egalitrians as the “far left”.

    Nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (7,522 comments) says:

    “And John Key who supported the looniest bit of legislation this country has ever seen is now descibing his co egalitrians as the “far left”.”

    Yes, a joke isn’t it.

    Labour and the Watermelons and Mana and The Racist party and the National Socialists could all be in coalition with only minor economic differences to argue about.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    The Greens are the ONLY party that actually takes science seriously. The only party who really give a shit about what the climate might be like for our grandchildren. National believes in the free market above all else. Despite failure after failure after failure.

    [DPF: If they take science seriously why are they against fracking, nuclear power and genetic engineering?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The Greens are the ONLY party that actually takes science seriously.

    This the same Greens who wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide when told about its effects. (It is water) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    Bullshit Kea :) don’t believe every little bit of gossip you hear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    Quote fromn the wiki article on it: “In 2001 a staffer in New Zealand Green Party MP Sue Kedgley’s office responded to a request for support for a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide by saying she was “absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance”. This was criticised in press releases by the National Party[citation needed], one of whose MPs fell for the very same hoax six years later.[27]” A STAFFER fell for it twelve years ago, and so did a NAT mp 6 years ago! Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. queenstfarmer (742 comments) says:

    The Greens are anti-science, but more broadly anti-progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PBJ83, the Greens are not an environmental party. They are a racial left wing socialist party. They mis-use people concerns about the environment to advance their socialist causes.

    The founder of Greenpeace is very critical of the environmental movement for this reason, as are many of its founding fathers. They say it has been hijaked by politicos.

    The ironic thing is that socialist countries environmental record is almost as bad as their human rights records.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Mobile Michael 7:29 am

    You couldn’t be further from the truth. Stop making shit up, and read the actual policy:

    …the Green Party will:

    1. Support councils to use water meters for each residence and commercial property, so that water use is monitored and recorded for educational purposes and promotion of water conservation and demand side management. This will be facilitated through the Ministry for the Environment’s Sustainable Management Fund;
    2. Allow councils to adopt a progressive charging system for water when deemed necessary. In such a system the first unit, which provides for commencement and continuation of water supply and reasonable personal consumption, will be funded from rating revenue and free of direct user charges, while additional units may incur progressively higher direct charges

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PBJ83, do you think we should ban chemicals in our food ?

    Can you tell me where I can buy a non-organic vegetable ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    Kea. You can’t go into parliament with ONLY policies on environmental issues, of course they have other policies, and they’re up front about them. They probably have spent more time talking about GCSB and power prices and asset sales lately than they have about “environmental” issues. There’s no secret agenda, there’s an upfront agenda. And it’s increasingly popular, that’s why Steven Joyce is lashing out with name calling. The Nats are worried. The Green PArty is not an actiist group, it is a political party. It is not PETA or some other thing like that. And socialism (if that;s what you want to call their policies) is no guarantee of a good environemntal record, nor is capitilism or anything else. But nor is it in conflict with good environmental policy necessarily. Capitilism on the other hand with its hatred of regulation, just might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. alloytoo (431 comments) says:

    PBJ83

    At their best the Greens are the environmental equivalents of Young Earth Creationists hindering the world of real environmental scientists and conservationists.

    At their worst the Greens are Eco-Terriorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    I don’t know what you’re talking about with the chemicals in food thing Kea. the Green PArty you think you are opposed to is a straw man of your own imagination. BTW I have a BSc, I’m solidly literate in science I reckon. Better than Joe Public at least. And if you want to be turned “Green” get a BSc in ecology. Those lecturers DO NOT preach, they don’t need to. They give you it straight and the rest takes care of itself. The Green party is on the side of sceince, word to the wise…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PBJ83 , Pol Pot had the same policy as the Greens. He got people out of the cities and back to nature as socialist organic farmers. Of course this is an extreme comparison. Pol Pot’s country had real issues to address, unlike our reasonably well off society. There may be some genuine greenies in the party, but its overall goal is socialism and total control over our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    alloytoo, citation needed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    Kea, citation needed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MT_Tinman (2,985 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer (376) Says:
    April 23rd, 2013 at 9:11 am
    The Greens are anti-science, but more broadly anti-progress.

    I disagree.

    The reds are anti success, knowing that success in anything leads to people becoming more independent and no longer needing to be led by those (the communists) who know everything about everything at, of course, those peoples’ expense.

    The anti-progress, anti-science thing is simply a tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I’m solidly literate in science

    So you should have no problem answering my questions then.

    (PBJ83, do you think we should ban chemicals in our food ?

    Can you tell me where I can buy a non-organic vegetable ?
    )

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PBJ83 (21) Says:

    April 23rd, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Kea, citation needed

    Sure. Once you pay your tuition fees, I will help educate you. It is called “capitalism” (look it up)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. All_on_Red (1,336 comments) says:

    “The Greens are the ONLY party that actually takes science seriously”

    Oh that’s just so funny. The Greens take all their “science” from blogs like Skeptical Science and refuse to look at any other sources. The Greens are the ultimate victims of Group Think and wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,189) Says:
    April 23rd, 2013 at 8:29 am

    So suddenly the Greens are out of favour?

    Last week we were treated to Mojo Madness as the next best thing after free enterprise.

    While I do admire on some level your loyalty to your preferred political masters… it is a bit sad that tribal foot soldiers like yourself who would back the blue team into anything clearly struggle so much to understand that some people might support the Greens on issues where they are right, and oppose them on issues where they are wrong?

    It is confusing, I know, but you will get there in the end. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PBJ83 (26 comments) says:

    You guys are genuinely crackpot with your communism fears!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RRM, fair comment. Too often people appear to support or attack a position simply because of who is announcing it. Redbaiter is the worst for it. I am sure the Greens have come up with things I agreed with, though nothing come to mind !

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    PJB83 –

    I know the nutters on here cheapen words like “socialist” and “ccommunist” through constant repeated use whether the subject warrants it or not… but the Labour/Greens electricity pricing proposal would be a huge step towards communism. It would be extremely bad for the economy of the whole country and everyone living in it. Industry will stagnate and die, and with it people’s livelihods, because who with cash to invest in industry is going to pick NZ industries, if NZ is the kind of country where the Government might at any moment decide to unilaterally control your sales and profits and potentially kill your investment?

    As long as that madness is on the table you are going to be hearing a lot more fears of communism – including from people like me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    You guys are genuinely crackpot with your communism fears!

    Not as “crackpot” as the North Koreans, Russians, Eastern Europeans, Central Asians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Cubans…

    The 150 million who have died ( and are still dying) under communist regimes were “genuinely crackpot” too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    The Greens are the ONLY party that actually takes science seriously.

    And at 8:49, their supporters are the only ones to have hallucinogens for breakfast.

    The ideologically driven lies from the Greens might have played well to ignorance and fear back in 1983, but these days we’re a little more enlightened.

    Time to catch up, or voluntarily check yourself out of modern world and back into a cave.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. queenstfarmer (742 comments) says:

    You guys are genuinely crackpot with your communism fears!

    I don’t fear communism, it is a proven failed ideology, despite the views of Green Party MPs.

    So let me rephrase, to get this back on topic:

    You Greens are genuinely crackpot with your fracking fears!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RRM If a party came onto the scene advancing Neo Nazi policies, but claiming they were not as bad as other Nazis, would you be as tolerant or would you dismiss them out-of-hand ?

    Would you accept that they were not as extreme as other Nazis before them and give them a fair go ?

    If not, why do you expect people to be tolerant of communist policies ?

    Socialism is a present and current threat and has killed far more people.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    From The Green Agenda

    We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realise that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a ‘green revolution’ and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas.

    However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express
    [[continues]]

    A quote highlighting the agenda (bold mine):

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
    indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
    It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
    the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
    – UN Commission on Global Governance report

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (6,646 comments) says:

    PBJ83 – if the Greens are so sure the science is conclusive that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophe then why:
    1) do they keep using air travel so frequently?
    2) do they oppose fracking when evidence shows it leads to significant reductions in CO2?
    3) do they oppose large scale hydro power?
    4) do they propose a policy that purports to lower electricity costs for NZ when electricity prices actually should rise to make wind/solar comparable?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    Kea –

    RRM If a party came onto the scene advancing Neo Nazi policies…etc

    No, but that is because (a) I believe working people are smart and determined, and can cope with a little bit of Govt regulation that ensures c**ts don’t rob people blind; and (b) I don’t for a minute believe the kind of pinkoes we have in this country are actually going to be rounding up and killing people.

    Whereas even moderate neo nazis are still nasty objectionable sh!t heads and they need to be kicked to the kerb with extreme prejudice. We are fortunate that in NZ currently the only ones we have tend to do that to themselves, every time they open their mouths.

    I’m a left voter but this Labour / Greens electricity price proposal is a game changer for me. It is madness, and it is the kind of madness they could enact at the stroke of a pen if they were elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. All_on_Red (1,336 comments) says:

    RRM
    if you are a Left voter then you should like National!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. UrbanNeocolonialist (179 comments) says:

    The IPCC’s models based on high water vapour feedback CO2 sensitivity have been shown to be spectacular failures in http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png estimating temperature rises, during the temperature standstill of the last 17 years – they are simply running way too hot.
    Which is not to say there is no warming occurring, but simply that it is at a far lower rate than what the IPCC asserted would happen.

    There have been a lot of papers come out recently based on actual climate data that put the CO2 climate sensitivity at less than 2°C per doubling of CO2, rather than the IPCC’s 2-4.5°C that they came up with using computer models of poorly understood water vapour transport within the atmosphere (clouds physics is well nigh impossible to model).
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/19/lewis-2013-as-an-outlier.html

    Most would agree that a 2°C increase (0.7 degrees of which has already occurred in last 100 years) is not a big problem, temperatures have been higher than that at many times during the last 10000 years.
    http://klimaatfraude.info/images/GISP2%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    Nuclear power (mostly in asia) is already cheaper than fossil fuels. Chinese nuclear power production costs including amortisation are now cheaper than new zealand’s wholesale rates, and nuclear is currently on track to be 50% of all electricity production in the latter half of this century. But with lower cost than fossil fuels there will likely be an accelerated shift to nuclear to replace all fossil fuelled generation. New Zealand belongs to a shrinking club of non-nuclear luddites.

    The combination of reduced climate sensitivity and cheap nuclear power makes the whole end of the world picture painted by the IPCC entirely unbelievable. Gas is cheap, and does produce far less CO2, but the difference will have no significant impact on the world’s climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    All_on_red – I do ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RRM, your defense of socialists could equally be used to defend National socialists.

    Do you really think that socialist regimes promised they would kill and starve millions ? Far from it actually. Their stated goals were very attractive, as were Hitlers.

    I am naturally a bit left leaning, however, their lust for more government control always seems to turn bad. That is why I do not support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. labrator (1,745 comments) says:

    1. Support councils to use water meters for each residence and commercial property, so that water use is monitored and recorded for educational purposes and promotion of water conservation and demand side management. This will be facilitated through the Ministry for the Environment’s Sustainable Management Fund;
    2. Allow councils to adopt a progressive charging system for water when deemed necessary. In such a system the first unit, which provides for commencement and continuation of water supply and reasonable personal consumption, will be funded from rating revenue and free of direct user charges, while additional units may incur progressively higher direct charges

    If this is actually Green’s policy it’s as scary as their energy policy. Everybody gets some free water, and if you want more than we think you deserve, pricing gets “progressive”, ask the Ministry for the Environment what that means.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Science for the Greens:
    * EtOH is man-made and unnatural unlike Gaia-given cannabis.
    (Ethanol has existed on earth millions of years before cannabis.)

    * Smoking tobacco is harmful and should be banned, smoking cannabis is harmless and should be legal.
    (They’re both pretty bad for you. Cannabis will decrease your performance in tasks requiring concentration and reasoning.)

    * Glass bottles are better than plastic ones.
    (Glass bottles take up more landfill space, and the energy in making and transporting the heavy glass (and rewashing it if it’s going to be reused) uses much more of earth’s resources than a plastic bottle.)

    * Organic food is healthier.
    (Production of organic food is incredibly inefficient – that’s one of the reasons why it’s more expensive. We could not afford to feed the country if farming was organic. It tends to be smaller and less nutritious.)

    * We can destroy the earth if we’re not careful.
    (We certainly can’t. Not even if we tried. The earth has been through much worse in its history, and we’re pretty insignificant in the greater scheme of things.)

    * Giving more money to poor people will help them.
    (No. It just harms them and creates dependence and creates corruption in the distribution of money. Most people like independence, and don’t want to live with a government deciding for them how to spend their cash.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Whereas even moderate neo nazis are still nasty objectionable sh!t heads and they need to be kicked to the kerb with extreme prejudice.

    RRM, so what specific Nazi policies do you not like?:

    1. Closing the gaps between rich and poor.

    2. Preserving the land and language of the indigenous people.

    3. Allowing ordinary working people a say in running the country.

    4. A job for every one.

    5. Stopping banks and big money dictating to and controling the people.

    Or have you simply become confused about the differences between what is promised and what is delivered ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their project. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

    —David Foreman, Earth First!

    No wonder the Greens don’t support fracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hj (6,343 comments) says:

    “, it is quite easy to argue there are three main causes, fracking, high oil prices and the recession. The rise of natural gas in the power sector is only good for only 40% of emissions cuts between 2005 and 2012, its good for a little more in industry. More than half the total cuts are attributable to rising oil prices and the recession, just look at the EIA data ”
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/overcoming-objections-to-shale-gas-by-jeffrey-frankel

    International Energy Agency: Progress toward low-carbon energy ‘stalled’
    The Paris-based IEA’s conclusion is based on their newly launched “Energy Sector Carbon Intensity Index,” which looks at how much carbon dioxide is produced per unit of energy worldwide.

    The amount “barely” fell over the last two decades and “shows no recent improvement,” according to the IEA, a multinational organization whose membership includes the United States.

    Green energy development has increased sharply worldwide, and in the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas-emitter, growth in natural gas-fired power at coal’s expense has helped curb carbon emissions.

    [off sourcing production]

    {snip}
    and
    ““Stark messages emerge: progress has not been fast enough; large market failures are preventing clean energy solutions from being taken up; considerable energy-efficiency potential remains untapped; policies need to better address the energy system as a whole; and energy-related research, development and demonstration need to accelerate,” the report states.

    In Europe, on the other had, greenhouse gas emissions rose due to increased consumption of coal (in part due to Germany’s reduction of nuclear power and the higher price of natural gas compared to the U.S.).

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/294393-international-energy-agency-progress-toward-low-carbon-energy-stalled#ixzz2REfXPehh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. All_on_Red (1,336 comments) says:

    hj
    In Europe and also in the UK there is currently a moratorium on fracking and extracting shale gas. The UK is stupid as they have huge reserves. Google “the Beast of Blackpool”.
    If they did it, not only would CO2 emissions drop (not that it matters) but their reliance on Russian gas and French Nuclear would drop.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    The concern about fracking is about the impact on the safety of the water supply, water as a resource is as important an issue as global warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, So show me the evidence fracking is a serious threat to water?

    Science says it is not.

    (I would love you to discredit science, dare ya to…)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Fracking hysteria was invented due to the lefty greeny disgust at new energy reserves being discovered, after spending so much on promoting the “Peak Oil” story.

    The very last thing the greenies want is cheap and plentiful energy. No society embraces the spiritual and economic poverty of socialism unless they are on their knees both financially and socially. The lower and the faster they can drag us down the quicker they can have the domination over us they crave.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    Tell it to the Europeans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC (2,850) Says:
    April 23rd, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    Tell it to the Europeans.

    “Fracking isn’t just for shale. In Russia, producers are importing techniques from the U.S. to squeeze billions of dollars of extra oil from Soviet-era fields.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/russia-adopts-texas-drilling-to-revive-soviet-oil-fields-energy.html

    Well SPC that is most of Europe. There may be a few tiny little countries who have restricted it to please the humanity hating greens for political reasons. But guess what ?… They just buy it from Russia anyway. You really are a silly little commie muppet SPC :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, did I mention, Africa, North America, China and well…. most of the worlds land mass, is into Fracking ?

    Remember if you are talking about water, then countries do not matter, land area does. You could put all the countries opposed to fracking in the Russian Taiga and you would never find them again. (not a bad idea really)

    You see SPC white rich middle class socialists make up a tiny little percentage of the world. It is vanishingly small how many people think like you/us. They do not have the luxury of indulging green Gaia fantasies that the spoilt brats of our society do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. slijmbal (1,210 comments) says:

    Fracking is used to cover a wide range of techniques used to improve returns from oil and gas.

    It can be used in marginal or more risky environments – that’s where regulation matters but a universal ban is akin to getting rid of roads because some people die on some roads.

    I worked in an oil exploration and production lab for several years 25+ years ago and am happy to say even back then that exceedingly large company was terrified about pollution of any type.

    It was also clear then that improving the quite poor efficiencies in oil and gas extraction would have enormous benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.