In a recent 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club appears to support hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking' if it's done right. That might be an okay statement, but his other statement: 'Promote gas as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, but hold the industry accountable for tighter standards.'
Dear Sir, you are wrong in your assessment and it is a statement that you did not support with scientific evidence. Why would Sierra Club promote natural gas as a cleaner alternative? Cleaner in what respects? Please provide your scientific data to assert your statement. Better yet, read the facts and support them!
------------------------
I assume Mr. Brune still has not not read the 'peer reviewed' paper on methane emissions below which scientifically tested methane and found that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Maybe Mr. Brune can respond differently after reading the facts.
-------------------------
April 11, 2011
Natural gas from fracking could be 'dirtier' than coal, Cornell professors find
|
| Howarth |
Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).
While natural gas has been touted as a clean-burning fuel that produces less carbon dioxide than coal, ecologist Robert Howarth warns that we should be more concerned about methane leaking into the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing.
Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2), Howarth said, adding that even small leaks make a big difference. He estimated that as much as 8 percent of the methane in shale gas leaks into the air during the lifetime of a hydraulic shale gas well -- up to twice what escapes from conventional gas production.
"The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil," Howarth said. "We are not advocating for more coal or oil, but rather to move to a truly green, renewable future as quickly as possible. We need to look at the true environmental consequences of shale gas."
Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology, Tony Ingraffea, the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology, analyzed data from published sources, industry reports and even Powerpoint presentations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
They compared estimated emissions for shale gas, conventional gas, coal (surface-mined and deep-mined) and diesel oil, taking into account direct emissions of CO2 during combustion, indirect emissions of CO2 necessary to develop and use the energy source and methane emissions, which were converted to equivalent value of CO2 for global warming potential.
The study is the first
peer-reviewed paper on methane emissions from shale gas, and one of the few exploring the greenhouse gas footprints of conventional gas drilling. Most studies have used EPA emission estimates from 1996, which were updated in November 2010 when it was determined that greenhouse gas emissions of various fuels are higher than previously believed.
READ MORE... ChronicalOnline
Source: Chronical Online and quote from
60 Minutes
