Without adopting stringent policies such as the Kyoto treaty or cap-and-trade, the United States, the largest economy in the world, has the distinction of being the only country in the world to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why, in his address to world leaders at COP21, President Obama was able to tout that the “advances we’ve made have helped drive our economic output to all-time highs, and drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly two decades.”
The free market, that Obama and his minions are working to destroy, again bails him out politically.
18 thoughts on ““How fracking has helped the US lead on climate””
The irony is Obama, of all people, claiming credit for that which he and the left have so actively worked to oppose. Not to mention, it was the result of free market investment and risk taking along with some very useful analysis by the USGS, among others, which dismissed the claims that fracking was either dangerous or would contaminate groundwater, provided it was done in a safe manner.
Fracking sites do need inspections, and it is possible to do this in a way that could contaminate groundwater, so there is a place for government agencies in all this, provided they are kept at a reasonable and sane level. And a science based, not generally politically active, agency like the USGS is where you’re most likely to get useful help.
Somewhere on the left someone has noted that and put the USGS on the list of agencies to be fully politicized ASAP. Everything in service to The Party, comrade!
Scientific American: Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming
Scientific American: Nuclear Power Must Make a Comeback for Climate’s Sake
Natural gas prices are now the lowest they’ve been in 13 years
Astounding. Plumping the levels last seen in the 90s.
Natural gas is one of the EPA’s “building blocks” for their takeover of energy production. See the question: “Q: How was each state’s target calculated?”:
Notice the PDF goes to a dead link. How they came up with specific calculations for which process does what resulting in how much still remains a bit of a mystery. It must have something to do with all the goodness that magically springs forth from government oversight and regulations.
Interestingly, if you look at the map of state targets, North Dakota, where much of that natural gas is produced, will be hit the hardest. I’m guessing that has to do with gas flaring – they have to burn off up to 20% of the gas they drill. The reason is the wells aren’t adequately connected to pipelines, which, of course, require years for regulatory approval as we saw with Keystone.
It’s still possible that crushing regulation like the EPA’s energy grab can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but it’s also all the other regulations that are making things worse not better. The government has been eager to blame industry for climate problems, but it never points the finger at itself which where wastefulness originates.
>> It’s still possible that crushing regulation like the EPA’s energy grab can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
What’s most insidious about this is that it goes on under the radar. No one except those intimately involved know: it’s even happening, what’s being mandated, what the mandates are, how they were arrived at, what the costs are, what the benefits are, what are the wider impacts and effects. And it never ends. And the regulations die no natural death, they never expire. New are piled on top of old.
>>Natural gas is one of the EPA’s “building blocks” for their takeover of energy production.
Biomass is an EPA building block for reducing CO2. Biomass. You read that right. Nuclear power is not. Science!
I got your biomass right here.
Carbon Dioxide is a life giving substance. Truth be known that its level in the atmosphere was growing worryingly low before men started to return some of it to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
The irony is Obama, of all people, claiming credit for that which he and the left have so actively worked to oppose.
Yes, yes, yes. Let us take a trip down memory lane to 2008 to recall what Obama said off the teleprompter about energy. Off the teleprompter Obama is more likely to state what, in his heart of hearts, he really believes. And in this case, it ain’t pretty.
No need to drill for oil- just inflate your tires and get tuneups! This was easily refuted at the time. Obama did not admit his mistake, but doubled down- which turned out to show how he would handle mistakes when he became President. Not only was his statement easily refuted at the time, the record shows that increased drilling did result in increased reserves and production. Surprise, surprise, Surprise.
Yet Obama now tries to take credit for increased domestic production, lower oil prices, and lower carbon emissions as a result of increased natural gas production- all of which occurred because of increased drilling, which Obama informed us in 2008 was completely unnecessary. Just inflate your tires, and get tuneups.
If you outsource your steel-making and manufacturing to China, don’t you expect your CO2 emissions to fall?
“If you outsource your steel-making and manufacturing to China”
The current regime and its supporters are very enthusiastic about ephemera like facebook. Manufacturing is so messy.
The reason why fracking works so well here is the government does not own mineral rights. Europe will miss this bus until someday the people own the mineral rights under their land,
The reason why fracking works so well here is the government does not own mineral rights. Europe will miss this bus until someday the people own the mineral rights under their land
Which reminds me of the time I had a discussion in Colombia with a sophomoric Swedish communist.[Self-proclaimed communist, I might add.] He was talking about the injustice of governments in Latin America appropriating for themselves oil revenue from Indian/indigenous tribal lands which is how it happens down there, as the government owns the mineral rights. My reply was that in the US, where land owners own mineral rights, that wouldn’t occur. That answer didn’t please him.
>> a sophomoric Swedish communist
Ground level communists are forever surprised by how things actually work out when a few people control everything.
“the people own the mineral rights under their land’; they do – in the socialist sense of “the people”.
Natural Gas pricing is experiencing tremendous market pressure as certain struggling “tight oil” frackers are shifting their focus from oil to gas. Furthermore, by extending their “laterals”, frackers are extracting more gas than believed possible only two years ago.
In this sense what’s happening with energy is similar to what happened with telecom from 1999-2002. Just as debt fueled telco providers were able to increase capacity on existing fiber, debt fueled frackers are able to increase recoverable gas in existing wells. This allows neither scarcity or prices to rise. Great for consumers but bad for producers and early investors/lenders.
“they do – in the socialist sense of “the people”.
If “everyone” owns something, no one owns it. Socialism doesn’t work.
Weird how all the tax payer subsidies to go politically trendy green energy, but the folks fracking and producing low energy prices for everyone get stuck holding the bag.
“Weird how all the tax payer subsidies to go politically trendy green energy”
It has always been that way. The politicians have their favorites, usually contributors, and those who value freedom and independence are on their own. The fact that those on theor own usually do better in a free economy suggests why. We do not currently have a free economy.
Comments are closed.