DOS

All-Star Author
Illinois
Posts:672 Points:930,500 Joined:Feb 2003
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 11:44:56 AM
Interesting that the articles author, Alan Riley, elects to specify "Shale gas" instead of just using the more generic term "Natural Gas" because he is wrong to say that the Green movement "might at first" see Natural gas as the enemy. A lot of us Greens saw Natural gas as a bridge fuel at first; it was only when "Shale gas" became the most common source of new growth in the supply of "Natural gas" that Greens began loosing faith in that energy path.
As teafortwo has pointed out, Sloppy harvesting methods embraced in the rush to develop Shale gas has turned out to be a threat to clean water supplies. Not to mention the release of Methane gas at the many of the Shale gas wells.. also a result of SLOPPY shortcuts being used.
So it seems to me that a move to promote "Shale" gas is just another diversion from the path to a true cleaner future in developing renewable energy supplies. This is particularly the case in India which has no real infrastructure in place. For them developing "Shale gas" instead of locally produced renewable energy is just a pure waste of time.
[Edited by: DOS at 8/15/2012 11:46:23 AM EST]
|
jbrad4

All-Star Author
Dallas
Posts:809 Points:498,855 Joined:Nov 2010
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:58:50 AM
Nat gas has fewer emissions than coal.
|
teafortwo

Champion Author
Washington
Posts:22,370 Points:1,410,965 Joined:Feb 2009
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:37:00 AM
More BIG GREED industry propaganda for the OIL & GAS bunch.
Nothing here but hype and spin all wrapped up in an opinion piece.
|
NHLiveFree

Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:11,289 Points:1,649,075 Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:08:34 AM
Such imaginative industry shill PR. Will wonders never cease???
|
leeac

Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:1,731 Points:460,630 Joined:Jan 2012
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 8:32:17 PM
Yea. Help the climate and screw up the ground water.
|
doggod

Champion Author
Anchorage
Posts:2,983 Points:768,085 Joined:May 2009
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 8:23:01 PM
It's important to keep in mind that environmental organizations don't exist for the purpose of protecting the environment: they exist for the purpose of growing themselves, and the issues they select to champion are those which contribute to that goal.
So if they don't get behind things that make sense and actually would help solve the problems they say they're worried about, don't act surprised. Solving the problem would be the worst possible outcome, causing the need for their existence to evaporate and the cushy executive jobs of those making these strategic decisions to go with them.
No, look for them to keep pushing flashy, faux solutions so their lives can go on.
|
Lugi1967

Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:4,915 Points:1,028,685 Joined:Jun 2010
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 7:35:59 PM
OK
|
ToolinIt

Champion Author
Colorado
Posts:1,805 Points:911,260 Joined:May 2010
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 7:13:58 PM
The NY Times put out this article? I'm shocked!
|
Venzadriver

Champion Author
Florida
Posts:1,325 Points:366,515 Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 6:52:52 PM
Start implementing algae-based bio-fuels.
|
davenles

Champion Author
Texas
Posts:3,331 Points:745,385 Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 6:02:32 PM
climate rescue... really??
|
RONALD777

Champion Author
Houston
Posts:3,313 Points:390,455 Joined:Nov 2007
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 5:45:47 PM
The climate doesn't need "rescued". Some people just need a brain transplant. Just drill baby drill!
|
teafortwo

Champion Author
Washington
Posts:22,370 Points:1,410,965 Joined:Feb 2009
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 4:38:39 PM
The "bigger picture" is that water is essential to life.
Not to worry.
The BIG GREED industry of OIL & GAS can always go into the water purifying & delivery business.
What is a better business plan than to create a need and then fill it?
|
crep1291

Champion Author
Ottawa
Posts:2,636 Points:486,070 Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 4:26:30 PM
Why would China give up coal when it can burn both the natural gas and the cheap coal it's sitting on? Yeah, natural gas may be cheaper than coal, but that will only encourage waste and inefficiency.
|
buckets42

Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:1,690 Points:329,550 Joined:Oct 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 2:34:02 PM
Yep
|
98

Sophomore Author
Madison
Posts:100 Points:68,600 Joined:Aug 2012
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 2:13:43 PM
Nice
|
335d1

Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:2,519 Points:785,770 Joined:Feb 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 1:37:28 PM
We'll see about that.
|