Colorado’s Democratic governor throws the conservation community a curveball on the issue of human-caused climate change, versus the controversial practice of hydraulic fracture drilling for natural gas–as the Durango Herald reports:
Hickenlooper often talked about climate issues when he was mayor of Denver, but he has been quieter on the topic since he became governor. He spent 30 minutes Tuesday morning at a conference of the Colorado Climate Network, a group of local governments that studies ways to adjust to climate change.Acknowledging that “it drives some of my friends crazy,” the Democratic governor said embracing natural gas is the only realistic way to cut American emissions of greenhouse gases.
Hickenlooper also urged people to ramp up pressure on Congress to extend the wind-production tax credit. But he saved his strongest endorsement for a fuel that has stirred controversy in recent years.
The United States never signed the Kyoto treaty to cut greenhouse emissions, but the country is on its way to meeting the target anyway thanks to natural gas, Hickenlooper said.
“We are more than halfway toward compliance because we have these innovations in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
Without wading too far into the contentious underlying issue, we will say that this represents a more intelligent argument from Gov. John Hickenlooper than he’s made in the past. Last year, Hickenlooper enraged environmentalists when he claimed in an energy industry-funded ad that fracking has never resulted in groundwater contamination–a claim that has been repeatedly disproven. Later, Hickenlooper claimed that “you can drink” fracking fluid, an extremely dubious claim based on one experimental “fracking” product that is not even required to be used. In yet another gaffe, Hickenlooper absurdly claimed that fracking has “literally no risk.”
These incidents cannot help but impact Hickenlooper’s credibility on the issue.
It’s clear that the public health issues presented by “fracking” in and around Colorado communities involve more immediate challenges than those presented by global climate change, though it’s true in the abstract that natural gas contributes less to that particular problem. In this latest offering, Hickenlooper presents natural gas as a “bridge” to future energy technology, and challenges opponents to find a workable alternative.
Bottom line: we’ll give Hickenlooper credit for a more intelligent case than he has made in the past, but it’s an equivocal case at best. And the question of whether “fracking’s” incremental climate change advantage offsets public health concerns? He definitely did not settle it.
Full story: Hickenlooper: “Fracking” To Fight Climate Change?
Prove it. Prove that fracked fields are not leaking methane into the atmosphere – a greenhouse gas 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Prove that it will lead to investment in true sustainable / renewable energy – natural gas will not last forever. Prove that it will make any kind of dent in China or India’s use of coal.
Color me a very deep shade of skeptical. My trust level for COGCC and Hickenlooper is nil.
from Cornell University concluded that, cradle to grave, natural gas is NOT cleaner than coal…nor oil. Massive fugitive emissions and a huge recovery mechanism powered by oil (mostly) more than make up for the savings obtained during combustion.
Clean Natural Gas is as complete a misnomer as “Clean Coal”.
Governor Frackenlooper continues to earn the moniker.
fracking, is good for Colorado . . .” — J. Frackenhicker, Colorado Fracker in Chief.
Our Governfracker has found us a real, live, honest to goodness, 21st century shmoo . . .
right to work laws will be good for workers and unions . . .
http://takingnote.blogs.nytime…
Thank god for Governors — they know stuff that nobody else knows!
Just asking.
There’s an easy-to-discern reason why oil and gas producers are moving as quickly as they can to lease, drill and produce. They know that eventually the average citizen will have a better understanding of the long-term negative impacts on water and air quality, climate health, plus human (and animal) health. So producers – and the Governor – want to produce as much as they can, while they can.
The oldsters here might remember that sarcastic comment from during the Viet Nam war.
It was a “Yeah, right…” response to the destruction of Ben Tre. An unknown major told a reporter, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
Welcome, Orwell.
Excellent point. Show your work, Hickenlooper, or this is another weak minded copout.
while offering nothing to support your own assertions is an old and discredited technique.
I am far from convinced that fracking causes erectile dysfunction, male pattern baldness and all the other evils alleged but not proven against it.
Hi ColPols, I’m a broken record here, but this is important.
Leaks of natural gas directly into the atmosphere make the natural gas industry about as bad for climate change (although not generally as bad for respiratory health) as coal.
A peer-reviewed article from the journal Climate Change says: On balance, these factors more than offset the reduction in warming due to reduced CO2 emissions. When gas replaces coal there is additional warming out to 2,050 with an assumed leakage rate of 0%, and out to 2,140 if the leakage rate is as high as 10%. The overall effects on global-mean temperature over the 21st century, however, are small.
A peer-reviewed article from Nature says: natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere – not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.
Summary: the evidence suggests natural gas is about as bad as coal (a 4% leakage rate), maybe worse (4% only accounts for leaks before pipeline distribution). In no reasonable view that accounts for this evidence is fracking a climate solution. What’s more, since fracking keeps energy costs low, it’s presence forestalls the introduction of large-scale renewables. Hickenlooper is still Frackenlooper.
Thanks for citing real, peer reviewed science. Too bad politicians like Hick get their scientific analysis from oil and gas lobbyists.
Fracking methan bad:
http://www.scientificamerican….
Others, of course say it can be done cleanly, but at some additional expense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…
Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate nails it:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind…
With someone other than COGCC and Hickenlooper, I might be able to extend a modicum of trust. The O&G industry has a proven track record as a bad actor, and very obvious economic incentives to greenwash their activities.
Also, Hick & co were the ones claiming a net greenhouse gas win for fracked methane. So the burden of proof is on them, not on me.
Finally, a large amount of the fracking in Colorado is actually for oil, not gas. Which of course does not supplant coal. And the incidental methane releases from fracked shale then has no counterbalancing “good” from the methane generation.
Not to mention the impact that VOC emission from oilfields has on Front Range cities. Everything points to fracking being bad for Coloradans.
Howarth’s study isn’t the final word on the subject. One of the very real problems is a lack of data. Howarth says so. If no attempt is made to capture fugitive methane, then the Howarth results may actually be conservative. But if “best practices” are followed, then it appears that fracked gas results in a much lower greenhouse gas effect than coal.
I think we are leaving a lot of information out of this discussion. Green fracking fluids are required in the ocean, but not in Colorado. Drilling mud, produced water, and other nasty things are dumped directly into the ocean when drilling there–per an oil and gas worker friend of mine in Louisiana. Here they go into evaporative ponds that are supposed to be covered to protect wildlife, but I’ve never seen a cover. Coal is being exported to China and India because enough of it can’t be sold here, but unfortunately the air pollution doesn’t stay in China and India, Peabody and Arch coal are trying to get permits to run 60 trains a day out of the Powder River Basin, effectively cutting many old railroad towns in half for the better part of a day, dropping coal along the way, which finds itself into waterways, and the dust hangs in air inversions until the next big rain or snow comes along, washing the dust into rivers like the Columbia. We need to stop kidding ourselves about climate change and invest every spare penny into finding ways to get away from coal, oil, gas, and fracking.
Every effort to determine and obtain “best practices”, or even improve current practices, has been met with stonewalling by the O&G-ers. With Hickenlooper watching their backs at every turn. How do we get to “best practices”, ajb?
To a low information citizen like me their wild claims about fluids safety (without revealing content), their cherry picking facts about natural gas from pre-drilling to well-head to kitchen stove (There are a lot of processes in between that we need to have examined and revealed.), their buying county commissioners (if it’s only “Jobs!”) and, frankly, their arrogance toward Colorado citizens trying to wrap their heads around the whole subject, make me think coverup.
And our governor’s shilling so unwaveringly for the industry makes me think (cynically?) $ $$$,$$$.$$ Hick and his buddies are feathering their nests bigtime, either now or preparing for when he’s no longer a (ahem) public servant.
poo poo the Cornell study, as you wish. It is unlikely, however, that “more data” will serve to support the industry claim that methane production is “cleaner” than oil or coal.
The use of “best management practices” and “best available technology” is not widespread because it is NOT REQUIRED.
Until it is, the gaspatch, as I have experienced it, is a very loosely managed operation when it comes to environmental responsibility. There is precious little acceptance, let alone focus on, the practices that could minimize the damage.
The people who actually work in the gas field generally couldn’t give a fuck less about best management practices…they get paid to get methane out of the ground..that is all. They resent any intrusion that will increase their work load or minimize their paychecks.
Just out of curiosity, ajb, how long have you lived in the gaspatch and what is your real personal experience with the realities of drilling for oil and gas? Personal experience with the realities of fossil fuel production has opened many eyes…
Or he need to go away. Or something. My biggest worry is that he stays, gets no primary challenge, and the Rs put up another nightmare candidate that nobody in their right mind would vote for. And then we get 4 more years of Hicklenlooper mistaking that outcome for some sort of “mandate.”
Even if the primary challenge is tilting at windmills, I think it needs to be done because H will have to tack left to pick up Democratic primary voters.
I posted 3 links at the top of the thread. Did you read any of them?
So let me answer your questions: I don’t live in the gas patch. I never have. 30 years ago, with a geology BS in hand, I decided not to.
But I’m still a scientist. I like to see real data back up conclusions. Howarth et al say they are extrapolating from limited data. Yet pointing that out is seen as an attack. Now I’m some sort of shill or denier.
The question before us is whether gas is better than coal (cradle to grave) wrt global warming. Answering that question requires sound science.
But go ahead. Keep attacking your allies. It’s a sure path to success.
seemed to you an attack. In rereading it, I don’t know what I said that struck you as such. I do not consider you a shill, I simply think that Dr. Howarths’ work is very relevant, because , with the limited data he had, he came to a conclusion that has not been scientifically debunked by anyone, except to say…”you didn’t prove it”.
His conclusion is supported by other evidence, not contradicted. I will certainly read the links you posted when I return, but now I have to go talk to a bunch of folks from El Paso county who are dubious about the claimed safety of fracking.
Again…sorry if I insulted you, I certainly didn’t mean to.