A summary of the energy crisis in Rap - more or less says it all!!
All RAP news clips can be found here
All RAP news clips can be found here
Friday 28 February 2014
Saturday 22 February 2014
murdoch twists the truth across continents 26-07-2011
David Fiderer, a US Banker specialising in the energy industry blogs about the way cross Atlantic links in Murdoch press operate in tandem to distort climate issues.
This is a re-post from Op-Ed a US online news and opinion web site- Recently the Murdoch press have featured heavily in the news for obvious reasons and we have tried to highlight its role in distorting climate issues
David Fiderer has been a banker covering the energy industry for several global banks in New York for over 20 years. Currently, he is working on several journalism projects dealing with corporate and political corruption that, so far, have escaped serious scrutiny by mainstream media. He is trained as a lawyer.
In this piece he traces the links between Murdoch's UK and US operations and traces the way the "climategate affair" was misreported and distorted to present minor reporting errors as a major scientific scandal.
How Murdoch's Times of London and Fox News Coordinate Their Deceitful Reporting on Climate Change
by David Fiderer
If you wondered whether Murdoch's various news outlets operate in sync when they misrepresent the facts about climate change, consider the deceitful reporting done by Ben Webster, the Environmental Editor for The Times of London . His smears against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were immediately amplified and embellished by Fox News in New York. Both Webster's story and its Fox News incarnation were used to defame the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and to lend an air of legitimacy to the phony "Climate-gate" scandal that had already been debunked by scientific journals and scientific inquiries .
Today we know that one of the Murdoch employees arrested in Britain, Neil Wallis, was deeply implicated in two hacking scandals, the first pertaining to the News of the World, and the second pertaining to the invasion of computers at the University of East Anglia, the victim of the phony "Climate-gate" scandal touted by Fox News. So it may be worthwhile to take another look at how deceitful reporting within the Murdoch empire can spread like a virus. Look at the opening paragraphs in The Times of London story:
Climate scientists at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails acted with integrity and made no attempt to manipulate their research on global temperatures, an external inquiry has found.
Their research was, however, misrepresented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which failed to reflect uncertainties the scientists had reported concerning the raw temperature data.
An inquiry panel of leading scientists, nominated by the Royal Society, said that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit may not have used the best methods for analyzing temperature records.
Webster's second and third paragraphs distort the panel's findings beyond all recognition. The IPCC misrepresented nothing. The inquiry panel merely pointed out that the IPCC neglected to highlight a truism, which is obvious to all climate scientists and to anyone else who gave 10 seconds of thought to the subject. How can scientists gather data to measure changes in global temperatures going back in history? Recent data may be gleaned from meteorological instruments. Older data may be gleaned from tree rings, which can be found on land but not on the ocean. So scientists rely on well-established statistical methods to develop certain inferences about global temperatures at earlier times in history. All science is based on mathematics.
Here's what the scientific panel actually said:
"Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined."
The CRU research was "misrepresented" by the IPCC? Only to the extent that the IPCC failed to belabor the obvious. Nor did the inquiry panel say anything like, "the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit may not have used the best methods for analyzing temperature records." That was an extreme embellishment by Webster. The only thing the scientific panel said that remotely similar to Webster's allegation pertained to the data analyses of tree rings:
After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.
But also:
It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.
And the panel was also very clear that the CRU's critics, to put it charitably, did not know what they were talking about:
We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.
Remember, this is The Times' Environmental Editor reporting the story, which, on this side of the Atlantic, became:
"Climate Scientists Cleared, U.N. Blamed for Misinterpreting Data"
British climate scientists at the center of the scandal over stolen e-mails acted with integrity and made no attempt to manipulate their research on global temperatures, an external inquiry has found. But the U.N.? That's another story.
The scientific research into historical temperature records was misrepresented by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which failed to consider uncertainties the scientists had reported concerning the raw temperature data.
The inquiry panel of leading scientists, nominated by the Royal Society, said that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit may not have used the best methods for analyzing temperature records.
For a sense of deja vu all over again, check out this 18-month old piece: "Fox News Embraces Cyber-Terrorism to Subvert the Copenhagen Summit."
Panorama publish damning story on wind - 11-10-2011
Panorama has incurred the wrath of the renewable energy industry, making misleading claims about the costs of wind on the basis of an unpublished and unfinished report.
Unknown Knowns and Known Unknowns?
Panorama and ST can't be questioned because no one has seen the evidence.
Panorama incurred the wrath of the renewable energy industry with program they claim made biased claims about offshore wind costs based on an as yet unpublished and unfinished report.
It's yet another media report made on the basis of irrefutable data - that's to say data that's either made up or data that no one has actually seen. Even the company producing the "basis" of the latest story hasn't as yet finished processing the information. Unfortunately its the headlines that stick - no the fact that all the evidence says "this story is plain wrong".
In the wake of teasers like “Abandoning wind will save taxpayer £34 billion”, last Monday's BBC Panorama program could have left supporters of wind power wondering if they hadn't been making a huge mistake. Thankfully, they can stop questioning their sanity. The Panorama program was taking its figures from a leaked draught press release about an, as yet, unpublished KPMG report for the government.
Carbon Brief, investigating a Sunday Times story about the same report asked KPMG to clarify the figures. They said:
“...the Sunday Times story was based on "preliminary findings" and "...the full report itself is still being written"...
..."They added cheerily that they would let us know when they had a clearer idea of timing, and "hopefully we're not too far off!"
It's not the first time the media have responding to an unpublished report on energy costs this year – but this time, no one seems to know what data has been used to generate the headline figures – not even KPMG!.
Known Knowns
This is what we do know.
- The Panorama program made no mention of the rising prices of wholesale energy costs. According to Ofgem wholesale gas price is 40% higher this year than 2010/11 and wholesale fuel costs account for 56% of electricity bills. The same report continues
“Our snapshot estimate of the net margin on supplying a typical, standard tariff, dual fuel customer is approximately £125 per customer for the year from October 2011”
- The average cost of “subsidising” renewables is around £20 a year – more than 6 times less than the profit margins of the energy companies. What's more, fossil fuels get massive hidden subsidies in the form of tax breaks and the socialisation of the costs of damage caused by pollution and by some measures are already far more expensive than wind.
- The UK has suffered systematic underinvestment in new plant and infrastructure for 20 years . No matter how we produce power we will have to pay the price for the historic failings of our liberalised energy market.
- Fossil energy prices will continue to rise. Demand is rising rapidly worldwide. There are serious questions surrounding the new “golden age of gas”, driven by the ability to “frack” shale gas and even the International Energy Authority (IEA) warn that gas is not a solution to climate change.
- No mention was made of climate change - one of the main reasons for investing in renewables (Climate Progress summarises the IEA's shocking predictions on climate change). The KPMG report is apparently about costs. The IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook is very clear about the cost of not investing in low carbon energy:
“Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”
Clues about the clueless?
When the KPMG report finally emerges it may be possible to set their figures into some sort of context. It's difficult to really know how such a damming summary of wind can be produced at a time when investment in renewables is set to hit an all time high and costs are dropping rapidly. There are a few clues about the Panorama report.
Presenter Tom Heap's own web site says - "Tom is The Eco-Sceptic’ questioning the accepted environmental dogma. He has recently written on the perils of relying on nature for your energy, the self-righteous green movement”. BGB would be the last site to complain about questioning “self righteous greens” - but it appears Mr Heap has a bit of a record for less than accurate reporting.
Jo Abbess, blogging about his coverage of “Climategate" in June 2010 cited inaccuracies and said “some of the mistakes made by the reporter, Tom Heap, were laughable”. Since she blogged last year, criticising Heap's analysis of offshore costs, there's stronger data supporting the price competitiveness of renewables. EU climate chief Connie Hedegaa saying “offshore wind is competitive with nuclear power”.
Desmond Carrington's Guardian critique of Heap's reporting on Monday identifies a similar tendency towards one sided and inaccurate journalism. Jo Abbess concludes her blog by saying "Tom Heap is, in my humble opinion, entirely unqualified to broadcast on climate change" - perhaps he's entirely unqualified to broadcast on energy costs as well!
Media and Manipulation 13-07-2011
Press treatment of the Electricity Market Reform Bill offers an insight into systematic misreporting of climate issues in an effort to undermine public confidence in climate science.
The next day's “Daily Mail” headline roared with predictable fury: “Families face £1000 Bill for Green Energy”. By no means the only misleading headline or opinion piece about the impacts of decarbonising electricity supply, it typifies the way in which a significant section of the British press misrepresent issues surrounding climate change.
The real cost of supporting low carbon energy pale to insignificance when compared to the increase in costs caused by rising fuel prices. Department of Energy and Climate Change figures released by Friends of the Earth show that by 2020, developing low carbon, renewable power will make electricity cheaper, even if oil only rises to $150 dollars a barrel. Other forecasters back a far higher price – Barclays currently predict $180-185 a barrel, pushing fossil energy costs still further. The true public cost of not decarbonising energy supply will go far beyond future energy prices.
In a classic case of “privatising wealth but socialising cost" large sections of the the fossil energy industry wants to see “business as usual”. It won't have to pay for the impacts of climate change – we will, and the price will be a bleak future for our children.
The high price of hydrocarbons means vast profits for oil industry share holders so it's hardly surprising to discover that the virulent war on climate science has heavy backing from the energy industry. Over the years they have put vast resources into funding “junk” research and manipulating the media and public opinion. The reason? A direct attempt to discredit and deny outright that climate change is caused by human activities or that it poses any threat to the environment.
In the USA denial has become institutionalised and a matter of policy for the Republican party. At the heart of the campaign of misinformation and fake science is Fox News. It seems that News International's phone hacking operations are not the worse aspects of the Diggers media empire.Murdoch is so central to the denial campaign in the USA that “Rolling Stone” have nominated him “number one Executive responsible for blocking progress on global warming saying No one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch”. His Fox News channel spreads disinformation about climate issues and helped set up the “Tea Party”, an exercise described by George Monbiot as one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has ever seen.
The Murdoch Media empire is by no means the only news company to deliberately mislead its readers. In a brilliant Guardian blog A Hippocratic Oath for Journalists published earlier this week Monbiot describes the risks a media increasingly dominated by the interests of corporate wealth and powerful elites pose to the public. We need to think sensibly about sustainability - and we can't do that in a world where journalists put the interests of corporate greed ahead of the truth.
Charles Moore - voice of the right things the left may have it! -23-07-2011
In the wake of the Murdoch scandals, Charles Moore, influential right wing journalist, acknowledges that the power of global corporate business has corrupted legitimate authority.
Charles Moore bombshell - "I'm starting to think the left maybe right"
In the wake of the Murdoch news scandal Charles Moore, chairman of the influential right-wing think-tank, Policy Exchange opened his Telegraph, column earlier this year with the by-line “I'm starting to think the left might be right”. It's an extraordinary statement from Moore, a staunch defender of the right for 30 years.
He characterises the left view of
"Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything"
and goes on to acknowledge that the Murdoch scandal has
“revealed how an international company has bullied and bought its way to control of party leaderships, police forces and regulatory processes”.
It's interesting to see just how overt this corruption of democratic politics has become in the USA . "Climate Progress", a leftish leaning but impeccably researched Climate Blog, report that Koch Industries and Exxon simply pay directly to have a seat at the negotiating table when regulations involving their businesses are under discussion. If "what happens in America today happens in Britain tomorrow" still holds true, its not a good omen for the future of British politics.
Moore, at least acknowledging there are weaknesses in right wing orthodoxy, is heartening, but the real story isn't "the left is right" or for that matter "the right is wrong". It's recognising the game has moved on. Globalisation has given the world a new aristocracy with the wealth and power to bedazzle mere presidents and prime ministers. Like the ancient privileged classes of France and Russia, this global elite, haunted by the ghost of Marie Antoinette muttering, "let them eat cake", is utterly isolated from the common herd.
The right and left are still trying to relive a battle that was really over post WW2. It was the one for a reasonable allocation of the nation's wealth spread equably among those who worked to create it and fought to protect it - irrespective of class or status. Moore prays for conservatism will be "saved by the blind stupidity of the left". I would pray that all of us can be saved from ruin by recognising the the harm caused by an ideologically led abandonment of the strategic role of the state .
Soaring energy bills illustrate the problem. It isn't"green taxes" that drive spiralling costs. It's the toxic combination of deliberate blindness to the realities of energy supply and demand and a systematic under investment in capacity and intelligent distribution by a privatised energy industry hell bent on maximising profits. The dynamism and enterprise of the private sector can't respond to long term strategic needs that transcend year on year profits and corporate survival. Rightist ideological cant has diminished the state's ability to act in the long term interests of the nation.
The elephant in the room is "how the hell do we, all of us, left or right, make the transition to a sustainable world"? A false distinction between "right" and "left" is as dangerous as a rich and powerful elite covertly buying legislation to further their own profitability.
Corporate dominance in USA has sent a "Perfect Storm" raging through its political system. The current republican stance on US liquidity is by no means its only excursion into irrationality. On the issue of climate change Republican presidential hopefuls reject overwhelming scientific consensus to a man. Any deviation from a stance of “climate change doesn't exist orthodoxy” guarantees the fury of the oil industry funded "Tea Party", Murdoch's US media stable and certain unelectability. This insane state of affairs is the creation of those "bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything".
The truth is that differences between left and right are no longer relevant in a world where the overwhelming political priority should be de-carbonising our economy in a way that doesn't destroy our quality of life. The global elite's determination to pursue profit at any price is just as bigger threat to a rough handed trade unionist oik as as a fully signed up member of the county set squirearchy.
The left long ago accepted that direct state control of business is counterproductive. If Moore's column is an acknowledgement by the right of the need to resist the blandishments of uncontrolled global corporatism and to let go of an ideological rejection of the need for direct state involvement in the direction and development infrastructure we could all still win.
wolves killed to "restore ecological balance " compromised by tar sand extraction - 31-10-2011
Petition the Government now - 24 hours to stop UK blocking legislation that would ban Tar Sand oil from Europe - tar sand = destruction of one of the world's biggest wildernesses
The deliberate destruction of over 500 Canadian wolves, to protect caribou endangered by the extraction of tar sands is just one more chapter in a story of ecological vandalism in the name of greed and stupidity.
Avaaz have launched an urgent petition asking the Government not to block the EU's Dirty Fuels Directive. The EU measure would stop imports of the world's dirtiest and most environmentally destructive oil. Heavy lobbying from the energy industry and the Canadian government have persuaded the UK and French Governments to kill off these measures.
The exploitation of the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada is causing wholesale destruction of Canada's ancient forests, to extract a dirty, dangerous kind of oil. It comes out of the ground at a high energy cost and has the potential to derail efforts to stabilise the planet's climate.
The fate of 100's of wolves may seem like a minor detail of a major catastrophe but their slaughter in a doomed attempt to save Caribou threatened by habitat destruction highlights the ecological horror of the tar sands project
The Alberta tar sands and the associated works are one of the most serious threats to efforts to stabilise carbon and control climate change. With a reserve of carbon as big as the entire Saudi oil fields, hugely destructive extraction techniques, a high carbon cost and a dirty product its been the target of extensive campaigns in the USA by both the Keystone XL pipeline protesters and the well oiled corporate media and lobbying machines of the Koch Industries and Exxon petro-chemical empires
Last week Yale 360 – an on-line magazine published by Yale University – highlighted a very different take on the damage caused by tar sands extraction. The destruction of Alberta's ancient boral forest has restricted and damaged the habitat of woodland Caribou. According to Ed Struzik, who's been writing on the Arctic for three decades,
“ 34,773 wells, 66,489 kilometres of seismic lines, 11,591 kilometres of pipelines, and 12,283 kilometres of roads had been built in caribou country in west central and northern Alberta”
These developments have fractured the Caribou habitat and as a result:
“three of the province’s 18 herds are at immediate risk of disappearing because of loss of habitat. Six are in decline, three are stable, and not enough is known about the remaining six to determine how well they are doing.”
The response of Alberta Sustainable Resources Department has been a campaign of extermination against the native grey wolf population - over the past five years, the government of Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves with strychnine and shooting them from the air – killing over 500 wolves in one area alone.
Struzik goes on to explain that while wolf extermination gives short term respite to Caribou populations the primary problem is the fragmentation and loss of habitat He goes on to cite experts on wolves and wildlife conservation who are unanimous in saying that controlling wolf populations will not save the situation – restoring habitat will.
The Canadian Government claim not enough is known about the “spatial distribution” of Caribou to identify critical habitat but despite ignorance of key data the report that opened the door to wolf eradication programs said: “human-induced habitat alterations have upset the natural balance between boreal caribou and their predators,”
and acknowledged that Caribou populations could only be self sustaining if their habitat was preserved.
Meanwhile “Richard Schneider, executive director of the Alberta Center for Boreal Research; and University of Alberta natural resource economists Vic Adamowicz and Grant Hauer have estimated that it would be possible to preserve half of Alberta’s caribou habitat while giving up less than 1 percent of potential revenues from resource development.”
The fate of the timber wolves is a side issue in the context of the massive environmental threat posed by the tar sands developments but it's also a heartbreaking symbol of how little the corporate interests who stand to make trillions care. The wolf population, the essence of our wild world, are being exterminated to save a species who fate is already sealed by a reckless disregard for environmental good practice. It's probably expecting too much of businesses that are prepared to put the world's climate system on the line to care about a few hundred wolves, so these beautiful animals are just another heartbreaking piece of “collateral damage” in the quest for profit at any price.
Update
Greenpeace have launched an e-mail campaign to lobby Nick Clegg over the UK's refusal to support the EU's Fuel Quality Directive.
Full article: Killing Wolves: A Product of Alberta’s Big Oil and Gas Boom. Ed Struzic Environment 360
Wolf images via wikipedi creative commons - from UK Wolf Conservation Trust
tar sands - keystone xl survey compromised - 10-10-2011
The New York Times reports a clear conflict of interest. Key surveys for controversial Keystone XL pipeline were conducted by a contractor for the company building the project.
The New York Times reports that key surveys for the Keystone XL pipeline were carried out by a contractor for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the project.
Cardino Entrix, a Houston based environmental contractor has previously worked on projects for TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a "major client".
Their report said the project, one of the most complex pipelines ever proposed, would have "limited adverse environmental impacts", removing one of the last obstacles to approval. Professor Oliver Houck, a professor of law says that Cardno Entrix should never have been selected for the study as it has "a financial interest in the project"
Concerns about the impact of the vast fossil carbon reserves in the oil sands on climate aside, there are deep concerns about local environmental impacts. The oil mixture that Keystone XL will carry is especially thick, corrosive and unstable. TransCanada predicted its smaller Keystone 1 pipeline would suffer a 2000 gallon + oil spill only once every 7 years. In just over 1 year it has leaked at least 14 times including one spill of 21,000 gallons.
Tyndale Centre warns fracking plans could put UK decarbonisation at risk - 13-01201
A new Tyndall Climate Change Research unit appraisal of shale gas warns that fracked gas could put the UK's plans to decarbonise at risk - potentially displacing between 10 and 20GW of renewables
New Scientist On-line (11-01-12) led a story following the British Geological Survey launch of new web pages and videos about shale gas with the byline: “Frack away – there's no reason not too – two of the main objections to fracking have been blown out of proportion”.
In fairness to the BGS they make the point that shale gas is an important energy resource and stress that if it's to be used it's use should be combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – possibly a vain hope. CCS is still a largely hypothetical technology and it's reckoned that implementing it could represent 40% of the energy costs of thermal power. By chance, the government withdrew a £1 billion fund to develop CCS the day before the first ever sizeable CCS pilot was opened at Ferrybridge Power Station in Yorkshire – hardly a vote of confidence in the technology.
New Scientist really deserve a slap on the wrist for introducing an important technical study in such a flippant way, but it gives a great opportunity to set out the real concerns about shale gas exploitation. The principle objections to fracking are not the risk of earthquakes or the risk of water contamination but the long term impact of low cost gas on carbon emissions and investments in low carbon technology.
Coincidently the Tyndall Climate Change Research unit in Manchester published a 133 page appraisal of shale gas on the same day as the NS piece: “Shale Gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts”. It makes the real issue very clear. Only 20% of potential shale gas reserves in the UK would use 15% of the UK's carbon budget up to 2050. Kevin Anderson, Professor of energy and climate change, who wrote the report, believes shale gas should be left in the ground saying;
"In an energy hungry world any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions. In the case of shale gas there is also a significant risk its use will delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives."
Cheap gas creates a “double whammy”. It certainly produces less carbon than coal but it still but still has a big impact on carbon emissions. What's more, fossil fuels operate with a covert subsidy, the cost of the pollution they create is socialised, distorting the energy market. In turn, the availability of cheap gas tends to discourage investment in genuine low carbon options by lowering energy costs to a point where renewables can't compete. The Tyndall Centre Report argues that a £32 billion investment in shale gas could potentially displace 12 GW of offshore or 21GW of onshore capacity – raising the prospect of the UK not meeting it's renewables obligations.
Quite apart from impacts on emissions and treaty obligations there are other economic impacts of staking future energy strategies on gas. The IEA's “World Energy Outlook 2011” (Executive summary - page 2) launched in November 2011 warns of the cost of locking the country into a high carbon economy long term.
“The long lifetime of capital stock in the power sector means that the sector accounts for half the emissions lock-in to 2035. If action were to be delayed until 2015 around 45% of the fossil fuel capacity installed by then would have to be retired early or refurbished by 2035. Delaying action (on decarbonisation) is a false economy. For every $1 dollar of investment in the power sector avoided before 2020 an additional $4-30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for higher emissions.”
The real danger of shale gas is this process of locking our energy infrastructure into fossil fuels long into the future. With a struggling economy the debate about energy is moving away from the imperative to cut carbon and towards the need to deliver it cheaply. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate impacts we really don't need headlines like "Frack away – there's no reason not too" - especially from New Scientist.
fear about emissions and impact on development of renewables 19-06-2011
The oil industry's efforts to re-profile “unconventional gas” as a “green” alternative to coal poses a new threat to the development of low carbon power.
Last week the IEA (International Energy Agency) published a special report (summary) highlighting the potential for natural gas in the energy mix.
Conventional natural gas is far less carbon unfriendly than coal and while the original dash for gas played a significant role in reducing the carbon emissions from electricity generation it is still a fossil fuel. To have any hope of keeping warming to less 2oC - widely accepted as the most global temperatures can rise without risk of catastrophic climate change, all fossil fuel emissions need to be phased out over the next 50 years.
The “Golden Age of Gas Strategy” depends on exploiting vast reserves of "unconventional gas" extracted by processes such as fracking and coal gasification, processes that, according to research by RW Howarth et al produces methane emissions at least 30% and possibly double that of conventional gas wells. Far from being a "greener alternative", emissions on this scale would make unconventional gas more harmful than coal.
Emissions and direct environmental harm aside, there's a far more worrying aspect any new "dash for gas". Exploitation of abundant unconventional natural gas could stop development of renewables and politically difficult low carbon energy sources like nuclear power dead in their tracks. Michael Lind, writing in "War Room" talks of a "new age of fossil fuels". The article gives a chilling insight into the extent to which the dangers of climate change and the potential of low carbon energy are ignored USA. Lind argues that shale and tar sand oil remove the need to develop low carbon options as climate science presents only "worst case scenarios that can easily be ignored". A view as far from the truth as its possible to be - the science tells us with a high degree of confidence that doing nothing risks catastrophe.
The message for anyone concerned with sustainability is "keep unconventional hydrocarbons in the ground". If the oil industry exploits vast carbon reserves locked away in geological formations like shale gas and tar sand environmental disaster is inevitable.
early signs of the toxicity of fracking fluid - 11-07-2011
The Shale gas industry strongly resists allegations that fluids used in the fracking process are harmful. New research published in the US "Journal of Environmental Quality" suggests they may be underplaying the dangers of fracking fluids
Dr Mary Beth Adams, a supervisory scientist with the US forestry service, monitored the effects of fracking fluids on a quarter acre plot of forest over a two year period. Among the observed effects of exposure
- Within two days all ground plants were dead;
- Within 10 days, leaves of trees began to turn brown. Within two years more than half of the approximately 150 trees were dead; and
- “Surface soil concentrations of sodium and chloride increased 50-fold as a result of the land application of hydrofracturing fluids…” These elevated levels eventually declined as chemical leached off-site. The exact chemical composition of these fluids is not known because the chemical formula is classified as confidential proprietary information
- "The explosion of shale gas drilling in the East has the potential to turn large stretches of public lands into lifeless moonscapes,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that land disposal of fracking fluids is common and in the case of the Fernow was done pursuant to a state permit. “This study suggests that these fluids should be treated as toxic waste.”
Concerns about gas released by fracking are widespread. Some reserchers believe so much methane is relased from their extraction they have a bigger carbon footprint that coal - a recent "New York Times" investigation raises questions about the economic viability of fracked gas
why this blog
I wrote a lot of material for a website called green october - that then became biggreenbang (I had nothing to do with the titles) They were written for a boutique mobile phone company with a green profile and the idea was to produce an online magazine on sustainability -
Unfortunately the phone company didn't happen and the website has fallen by the wayside - but I thought it was worth posting some of the material because there are good links to info and - in some cases a record of events unfolding.
Unfortunately the phone company didn't happen and the website has fallen by the wayside - but I thought it was worth posting some of the material because there are good links to info and - in some cases a record of events unfolding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)