The following email discussion occurred spontaneously from April 7 to 8, 2014, among some members of CUCC’s Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force (JCC). A member of the JCC forwarded to the task force an email exchange he had with a member of the NC General Assembly. The JCC member urged others to write to their representatives to ask them to not support fracking as a way forward to meet North Carolina’s energy needs. A question posed by one JCC member (member C) led to a forwarded email exchange and sparked an important and ongoing discussion about natural gas, recorded here with the writers’ permission.
Emails between CUCC member B and Legislator A
Dear Legislator A,
Drilling for shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have contaminated drinking water sources and wells, and have caused air pollution and fractured communities in the states where they are occurring. A variety of health impacts to people and animals have been reported near shale gas development.
In North Carolina, the drinking water sources for millions, including hundreds of thousands of well users, could be at risk.
Drilling for shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have contaminated drinking water sources and wells, and have caused air pollution and fractured communities in the states where they are occurring. A variety of health impacts to people and animals have been reported near shale gas development.
In North Carolina, the drinking water sources for millions, including hundreds of thousands of well users, could be at risk.
We, the undersigned, urge you to reinstate the permanent ban on fracking and horizontal drilling for shale gas in North Carolina and to continue the ban on underground toxic waste injection.
Thank you.
Sincerely, CUCC member B
Thank you.
Sincerely, CUCC member B
Dear CUCC member B:
Thank you very much for your email. I agree with you completely. I do not believe North Carolina is ready for fracking, but if we do move forward with fracking, our citizens at the very least have a right to know what chemicals are being used. I will continue to fight for our citizens' safety in North
Carolina.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Legislator A
Thank you very much for your email. I agree with you completely. I do not believe North Carolina is ready for fracking, but if we do move forward with fracking, our citizens at the very least have a right to know what chemicals are being used. I will continue to fight for our citizens' safety in North
Carolina.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Legislator A
A question posted by JCC member C
To Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force members:
Ok - many of you known me as the bomb throwing anarchist. Please knock me down on this. I don't want to believe this is right.
I'm no fan of fracking. I'm all for clean energy.
One fact makes me think. Of all the clean energy technologies we have, none have actually lowered our country-wide carbon footprint as much as switching to natural gas from coal. None. From what I've read. If we realize we are already going to blow past the 2 degrees C that climate change scientists warn about, then time is perhaps the most important ingredient here. Natural gas lowers carbon now. This perhaps buys some time to scale cleaner energies.
Is the perfect the enemy of the good here?
I know we should conserve more. We should have more solar. We should have more wind. But natural gas has delivered significantly lower carbon now.
Please knock me down here folks. I don't want to be right here.
I'm no fan of fracking. I'm all for clean energy.
One fact makes me think. Of all the clean energy technologies we have, none have actually lowered our country-wide carbon footprint as much as switching to natural gas from coal. None. From what I've read. If we realize we are already going to blow past the 2 degrees C that climate change scientists warn about, then time is perhaps the most important ingredient here. Natural gas lowers carbon now. This perhaps buys some time to scale cleaner energies.
Is the perfect the enemy of the good here?
I know we should conserve more. We should have more solar. We should have more wind. But natural gas has delivered significantly lower carbon now.
Please knock me down here folks. I don't want to be right here.
CUCC member C
Discussion among Justice in a Change Climate Task Force members
To CUCC member C and Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
Natural gas is a disaster, especially from modern extraction techniques such as fracking (which is the current boom). Articles about NG as bridge fuel... not good. There is an article called something like "NG,
a bridge to nowhere" that I read recently, but could not find.
a bridge to nowhere" that I read recently, but could not find.
“Bridge Or Gangplank? Study Finds Methane Leakage From Gas Fields High Enough To Gut Climate Benefit” by Joe Romm, August 7, 2013 at 7:26PM on thinkprogress.org
“Major Study Projects No Long-Term Climate Benefit from Shale Gas Revolution” by Joe Romm, October 18, 2013 at 11:13am on thinkprogress.org
“Exporting Liquified Natural Gas is a Dreadful Idea for the Climate” by Joe Romm on March 12, 2014 at 10:46AM on thinkprogress.org
Article about wind power peak in Texas on 03/26/14 at almost 29% of total electric demand “Wind Reaches Its Highest Generation Level Ever in Texas, Heralding a Challenge to Natural Gas” by Jeff Spross on March 3, 2014 at 4:14PM on thinkprogress.org
If you only consider the emissions at point of use natural gas looks good. However, if you consider emissions through the production cycle of the fuel it can be as bad as coal. When you get into fracking you have to also consider toxic pollution to air and water and the connection to the earthquakes.
Build/deploy renewables now.
Sorry
CUCC member D
Build/deploy renewables now.
Sorry
CUCC member D
To CUCC member C and Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
midway through Joe Romm's article "Bridge or Gangplank", he states that the "...methane of natural gas is 80 to 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas in the first twenty years." This is from leakage that seems uncontrollable. CUCC member D sent you a link to the article. Kind of a frying pan into the fire deal.
CUCC member E
To CUCC member D and Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
So you're saying we can generate 80% carbon-free energy in the short term with clean renewables and no nuclear?
CUCC member C
To CUCC member C:
The switch to natural gas requires construction of power plants. The switch to renewables involves construction of solar wind facilities. Why not build the capacity with renewable instead of carbon fuels. If you look at new energy capacity constructed in the last 2 years in the US a huge majority of this new capacity is solar and wind. I sent you a link to a story, that point electric load by a major utility in Texas reached 29% a new point record. It's actually happening. One of the northern European countries is currently getting most of its electricity from wind.
In the year after Pearl Harbor, the US produced something like 20,000 ships. What we lack is the will with renewables not the technology. To use non-renewables at large scale to run our entire culture is a folly that can only lead to war and destruction and this is outside of the discussion of climate change.
Efficiency plays a huge role in this. I am personally working on designing buildings that use 90% less energy for systems relating to the building; heat, cool, proper humidity, clean air & light. These are the
things that I can control as an architect. 90% reduction, do-able using existing materials, methods and tech. The reason 90% is possible is that the construction industry has existed for so long with our energy
scenario that no one really looked at making buildings more efficient until now. In 1965 a computer filled a small building used a ton of energy and was a glorified calculator. Now your smart phone runs for a year on a few dollars of electricity, fits in your shirt pocket and probably has as much capability of all the mainframes in the world in 1965.
For me this comes down to a powerful industry that is fighting for its life and against change. Think of buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century. That's carbon fuels today. We resist change at our own peril.
One of the reasons the current system worked for so long is that most of the world went without the energy driven life but now they want it. This seems to be happening because our companies went round the world creating markets as fast as they could for all our stuff.
I think one of the big problems in making the change is the known carbon reserve; $27,000,000,000,000 of oil, coal, natural gas in the ground. Alternative energy system does not have a quantifiable reserve unless we can price and control the sun and the wind. It is difficult to walk away from that much value/money.
I didn't mention 80%. It will take a while to get to 80%. Many problems will have to be worked out along the way. Personally, I don't believe we have a choice. According to the IPCC report released on Friday we have 22 years to make serious progress.
Sorry for the rambling. We have never talked on this and there are so many issues.
CUCC member D
In the year after Pearl Harbor, the US produced something like 20,000 ships. What we lack is the will with renewables not the technology. To use non-renewables at large scale to run our entire culture is a folly that can only lead to war and destruction and this is outside of the discussion of climate change.
Efficiency plays a huge role in this. I am personally working on designing buildings that use 90% less energy for systems relating to the building; heat, cool, proper humidity, clean air & light. These are the
things that I can control as an architect. 90% reduction, do-able using existing materials, methods and tech. The reason 90% is possible is that the construction industry has existed for so long with our energy
scenario that no one really looked at making buildings more efficient until now. In 1965 a computer filled a small building used a ton of energy and was a glorified calculator. Now your smart phone runs for a year on a few dollars of electricity, fits in your shirt pocket and probably has as much capability of all the mainframes in the world in 1965.
For me this comes down to a powerful industry that is fighting for its life and against change. Think of buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century. That's carbon fuels today. We resist change at our own peril.
One of the reasons the current system worked for so long is that most of the world went without the energy driven life but now they want it. This seems to be happening because our companies went round the world creating markets as fast as they could for all our stuff.
I think one of the big problems in making the change is the known carbon reserve; $27,000,000,000,000 of oil, coal, natural gas in the ground. Alternative energy system does not have a quantifiable reserve unless we can price and control the sun and the wind. It is difficult to walk away from that much value/money.
I didn't mention 80%. It will take a while to get to 80%. Many problems will have to be worked out along the way. Personally, I don't believe we have a choice. According to the IPCC report released on Friday we have 22 years to make serious progress.
Sorry for the rambling. We have never talked on this and there are so many issues.
CUCC member D
To CUCC member C and Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
You might be right, but fracking involves more than lower carbon footprints. It places the water sources of large areas of the country at risk particularly in the states that straddle the 100th meridian and extend to the Rocky Mountains where surface water is minimal and the people as well as animals rely on aquifers for their survival. Fracking has led to poisoned ground water and rendered large ranches in Wyoming valueless. Secondly, there are collateral health issues. Considerable evidence exists about children as well as adults being adversely affected by the air they breathe in the vicinity of franking wells. In addition, crime rates also have increased where franking has taken place. The Williston Basin in North Dakota where fracking is going on at a gangbusters pace sends its weekend legal offenders to jails as far away as Minot because more local jails cannot contain them all. There are also serious social costs imposed by fracking. Communities where people once mostly got along now have serious conflicts over whether and where drilling should take place. Property values have plummeted for many, although some people have gotten rich selling out to the energy companies. On balance when total costs area assessed, I don't think fracking is the answer to our energy problem. From my perspective it costs too much.
CUCC member F
Thank you CUCC member C, for (again) sparking a very good discussion! I just want to add one thing, wearing my geology hat. Shale gas is only one of several so-called "unconventional" fossil fuel resources. These are the resources that are more difficult and more expensive (in terms of money, energy, and associated emissions) to extract, than are the "conventional" deposits, which are running out quickly anyway. So after shale gas, there are likely to be tar sands, methane hydrates/clathrates, oil sands, coal-bed methane and gasification. That is, unless we smarten up and begin to shift seriously off our addiction to fossil fuels. If only the research, and the subsidies, that go toward fossil fuels were redirected to development of clean energy sources.....
CUCC member G
To Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
For those of you who haven’t really experienced Bill McKibben of www.350.org and those who have, here is his most recent piece, published in the Guardian. “Exxon Mobil’s response to climate change is consummate arrogance” by Bill McKibben, April 3, 2014 at 7:13EDT in theguardian.com
CUCC member D
To Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force:
Believe me I’m no apologist for any fossil fuel. My point is the most important thing is TIME. And time within current political reality. Obviously it would be great to switch to renewable fuels quickly. That is what we “should” do. Even what we “must” do. But that doesn’t mean we will actually do it. Given the situation and political realities, is there no room for a plan B involving a bridge fuel?
From the discussions I’m hearing from David and others, I am hearing no. A bridge fuel strategy won’t work. I think I’m convinced.
I hate being the dark one. But I see the NBC and Showtime specials – and see voters – choosing to ignore science and rely solely on prayer amid historic drought, and I feel like I’m on Easter Island.
CUCC member C
To Everyone
The discussion continues in emails, the halls of CUCC, our homes, businesses, streets and our governments. Please contribute. Solutions to Climate Change need eveyone’s mind and input.
- posted for Gary Smith
- posted for Gary Smith