10/22/13
Why are we as a global society pushing for advances in fracking at such a high pace? Why aren't we being more cautious with fracking technologies? Oil companies are trying to push fracking into real world use as quickly as they can for a number of reasons.
The main influence in most technological advances: Greed. The big oil companies all want to make as much money as they can, and then some. They realize the "next best thing" for energy use could be fracking due to it being inherently cleaner than coal. These oil and gas companies are expediting the widespread use of fracking so that it will catch on around the world allowing for increased fracking. Without worrying about the unknown consequences of fracking, oil companies are causing a revolution of sorts with energy.
Another potential reason for this immense focus switch from oil to fracking could be due to the dwindling amount of oil left in already discovered reserves. As Klare discusses in his book, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources, many, if not all of our current oil wells around the world have been either stagnated or have begun to decline in productivity. This is largely due to our large extraction and consumption of oil to fulfill the current global need for oil as energy. New wells are becoming harder and harder to find in safe environments and so energy companies must either resort to drilling in very dangerous environments (like off the coast of Greenland or Norway), or focus their efforts on a new energy source - Fracking for natural gas.
Energy companies have been influencing the way the world and the U.S. specifically react to new technologies. Instead of being a precautionary approach to technology, we have a head first approach where we only worry fixing consequences of our actions instead of preventing them in the first place. In an ideal situation in terms of environmental friendliness, we would focus more on "doing the science" behind new technologies and making sure we understand and perfect them before implementing them in our daily lives. Energy companies nowadays do not want this to be the case and so by pushing fracking as hard as they can, they are effectively stopping a precautionary approach from being feasible. Unfortunately, this is causing the world to be in a more now-centered approach to living as opposed to one that worries about the long term. The long term has been put on the back-burner and is not even thought about from most of these large energy companies. All they are focusing on is making as much money as they can, as quickly as they can. The precautionary approach to technology would also change how regulation is dealt with. In society today, uncertainty becomes a barrier for regulating new technologies and techniques. However, if we had a different approach, we would be able to pass regulations in order to make new technologies safe and effective before they are used, as opposed to being unable to implement any form of regulation on these technologies.
As we continue to make the transition between coal and natural gas, regulation and technological understanding should play key roles in how energy continues to be handled. Fast-pushing any new technology can have clear downsides that may not be foreseen without proper understanding first. Whether or not energy companies research and follow safety precautions is wholly up to them. But from an outsider's perspective, the correct procedure seems glaringly obvious: Do the science before implementing any new piece of technology.
"Our technological powers increase, but the side effects and potential hazards also escalate." (Alvin Toffler)
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Organic Food
10/18/13
What is in our food? Most of the time, ingredient lists are not enough. Is the food we eat grown using chemicals that are harmful? Is the farming done sustainably? How many miles did the food travel from where it was grown to my plate? Recently, these questions have been asked by many consumers around the world. This has lead to local and organic foods popping up in grocery stores in large quantities. The "buy local and organic" fad is beginning to set into today's society, and with that comes an easily accessible wide array of local organic foods to buy.
Organic foods are becoming more prevalent through a variety of avenues. The first being through C.S.A.'s, or Community Supported Agriculture. There has been a large influx of these popping up in the greater Albany area as well as other locations. There are many benefits to this type of farming, both for farmers as well as consumers. The farmers are able to gain a fan base of sorts where they get mostly locals visiting their farms and buying their produce. This helps the farmer greatly because it helps them sell their produce while showing them that their is a market for what they are growing. It reassures the farmer that their farm will be supported by the local community.
The consumer also greatly benefits for a number of reasons. Consumers have a fantastic opportunity to eat healthy, extra fresh produce from a local farm. This way, the consumer can be conscious in who they are buying from, and be supporting their local economy, at the same time greatly reducing "food miles". By reducing the distance the food travels between where it is grown to your dinner plate is a great way to help the environment. Another great advantage of these farms is through the farmer-consumer relationship that grows and builds throughout the season. The consumers can interact with the farmers, giving them feedback which help the experience for both parties in the long run. In the same vein, farmers can take that feedback and improve on their services which leads to their business also growing.
Co-ops are another way that many consumers are taking charge in knowing where their food is produced and making sure it is grown responsibly. These are community run grocery stores where the community works for, and controls the products that are sold. This is a great way to sell only local foods, supporting the local economy greatly and, once again, reducing food miles. These co-ops are also great for consumers because they supply discounts for community members that work at the co-op for designated amounts of time. Not only does this support local economies and farmers, but it also helps reduce the prices of many products.
Many consumers are also supporting the organic trend by only buying from certified organic foods as well as GMO-free foods in their local super markets. The local organic fad has not stopped with just supporting local and organic businesses, but has also moved outwards to supporting companies that do not use GMOs in their products. Whether for health reasons, or personal reasons against a company, many people have been hesitant to try GMO foods. This, in conjunction with the widespread movement towards local economies has largely helped many local farms and hindered some of the food giants.
Overall, more and more communities are supporting their local farmers and economies. Not only is this benefiting the farmers and consumers through cheaper, healthier food, but it also an environmentally friendly way to buy produce. By reducing how far foods travels before we eat it, we are saving tons of gasoline that would otherwise be used for travel, sometimes upwards of fifteen-hundred (1500) miles. Buying local foods through C.S.A.'s, Co-ops, and other suppliers is one of the easiest and most effective ways we as consumers can influence our local economies, markets and produce selections.
"Going green doesn't start with doing green acts - it starts with a shift in consciousness. This shift allows you to recognize that with every choice you make, you are voting either for or against the kind of world you wish to see. When you assume this as a way of being, your choices become easier..." (Ian Somerhalder)
What is in our food? Most of the time, ingredient lists are not enough. Is the food we eat grown using chemicals that are harmful? Is the farming done sustainably? How many miles did the food travel from where it was grown to my plate? Recently, these questions have been asked by many consumers around the world. This has lead to local and organic foods popping up in grocery stores in large quantities. The "buy local and organic" fad is beginning to set into today's society, and with that comes an easily accessible wide array of local organic foods to buy.
Organic foods are becoming more prevalent through a variety of avenues. The first being through C.S.A.'s, or Community Supported Agriculture. There has been a large influx of these popping up in the greater Albany area as well as other locations. There are many benefits to this type of farming, both for farmers as well as consumers. The farmers are able to gain a fan base of sorts where they get mostly locals visiting their farms and buying their produce. This helps the farmer greatly because it helps them sell their produce while showing them that their is a market for what they are growing. It reassures the farmer that their farm will be supported by the local community.
The consumer also greatly benefits for a number of reasons. Consumers have a fantastic opportunity to eat healthy, extra fresh produce from a local farm. This way, the consumer can be conscious in who they are buying from, and be supporting their local economy, at the same time greatly reducing "food miles". By reducing the distance the food travels between where it is grown to your dinner plate is a great way to help the environment. Another great advantage of these farms is through the farmer-consumer relationship that grows and builds throughout the season. The consumers can interact with the farmers, giving them feedback which help the experience for both parties in the long run. In the same vein, farmers can take that feedback and improve on their services which leads to their business also growing.
Co-ops are another way that many consumers are taking charge in knowing where their food is produced and making sure it is grown responsibly. These are community run grocery stores where the community works for, and controls the products that are sold. This is a great way to sell only local foods, supporting the local economy greatly and, once again, reducing food miles. These co-ops are also great for consumers because they supply discounts for community members that work at the co-op for designated amounts of time. Not only does this support local economies and farmers, but it also helps reduce the prices of many products.
Many consumers are also supporting the organic trend by only buying from certified organic foods as well as GMO-free foods in their local super markets. The local organic fad has not stopped with just supporting local and organic businesses, but has also moved outwards to supporting companies that do not use GMOs in their products. Whether for health reasons, or personal reasons against a company, many people have been hesitant to try GMO foods. This, in conjunction with the widespread movement towards local economies has largely helped many local farms and hindered some of the food giants.
Overall, more and more communities are supporting their local farmers and economies. Not only is this benefiting the farmers and consumers through cheaper, healthier food, but it also an environmentally friendly way to buy produce. By reducing how far foods travels before we eat it, we are saving tons of gasoline that would otherwise be used for travel, sometimes upwards of fifteen-hundred (1500) miles. Buying local foods through C.S.A.'s, Co-ops, and other suppliers is one of the easiest and most effective ways we as consumers can influence our local economies, markets and produce selections.
"Going green doesn't start with doing green acts - it starts with a shift in consciousness. This shift allows you to recognize that with every choice you make, you are voting either for or against the kind of world you wish to see. When you assume this as a way of being, your choices become easier..." (Ian Somerhalder)
Carbon Tax and Budget
10/15/13
Carbon Dioxide emissions have been a large problem in today's oil dominated state. As we continue to spew out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses at such an alarming rate, we risk changing the climate so drastically that everything about our lifestyles will have to change. In order to combat what has already been done to the environment, there are measures that we can try to enforce on companies to reduce their carbon emissions and impact on the environment.
The IPCC, or The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested implementing something called a "Carbon Tax" or "Carbon Budget", which basically states a set amount of carbon emissions that companies can emit before facing some sort of consequence (IPCC). There are many intricacies that go into this reduction strategy including how to set a limit on the emissions as well as being able to accurately measure and record the amount of emissions each company is emitting.
One incentive for companies to support this idea is through a credit system where they get a set amount of emissions they can produce. This set amount is seen in the form of credits, where companies that are successful in lowering their carbon budget can sell their "credits" to other companies for real money. In turn the other company can emit more CO2 using the credits. This is a great way to promote emission reductions because it can create another avenue for revenue for the companies who are really interested in reducing their emissions. However, many companies are completely against having to reduce their carbon emissions for a variety of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason comes from the nature of their work. For example, coal power plants inherently will produce obscene amounts of carbon emissions. Any sort of reduction in carbon emissions is almost impossible for these plants due to their work.
Other ways to help reduce carbon emissions could be through implementing a law that requires companies to sell products that can be recyclable or reusable instead of products that we throw out after one use. Unfortunately, many of these companies will fight this law because their sales will be reduced. Most products nowadays are "made for the dump", a term used by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff. If products are no longer designed to fail, consumers will not have to buy products every six months due to faulty quality. The Story of Stuff is a great resource for learning more about the life cycle of products we use on a daily basis. Annie Leonard discusses the story of stuff, cosmetics, change, bottled water and even electronics, laying out the many problems with our current system of production. By reducing the amount of stuff we produce, reducing the amount of chemicals that go into the stuff we produce, and reducing the overall waste (Through making products recyclable and/or reusable), we can help reduce the carbon emissions produced on a global scale greatly.
Cracking down on carbon emissions is an obvious way to help slow down climate change. Sadly, many companies oppose reductions because they are not concerned about the environment, but instead are concerned about making as much money as possible. Not only will companies steadfastly oppose carbon emission reductions, but the enforcement of reusable or recyclable products will also be fought. As consumers we must use our buying power to support the companies that are more environmentally friendly and willing to help change as opposed to the any companies that refuse to act.
"Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billions tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero." (Bill Gates)
"IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=251>.
Leonard, Annie. "Story Of Stuff." Story Of Stuff. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://storyofstuff.org/>.
Carbon Dioxide emissions have been a large problem in today's oil dominated state. As we continue to spew out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses at such an alarming rate, we risk changing the climate so drastically that everything about our lifestyles will have to change. In order to combat what has already been done to the environment, there are measures that we can try to enforce on companies to reduce their carbon emissions and impact on the environment.
The IPCC, or The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested implementing something called a "Carbon Tax" or "Carbon Budget", which basically states a set amount of carbon emissions that companies can emit before facing some sort of consequence (IPCC). There are many intricacies that go into this reduction strategy including how to set a limit on the emissions as well as being able to accurately measure and record the amount of emissions each company is emitting.
One incentive for companies to support this idea is through a credit system where they get a set amount of emissions they can produce. This set amount is seen in the form of credits, where companies that are successful in lowering their carbon budget can sell their "credits" to other companies for real money. In turn the other company can emit more CO2 using the credits. This is a great way to promote emission reductions because it can create another avenue for revenue for the companies who are really interested in reducing their emissions. However, many companies are completely against having to reduce their carbon emissions for a variety of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason comes from the nature of their work. For example, coal power plants inherently will produce obscene amounts of carbon emissions. Any sort of reduction in carbon emissions is almost impossible for these plants due to their work.
Other ways to help reduce carbon emissions could be through implementing a law that requires companies to sell products that can be recyclable or reusable instead of products that we throw out after one use. Unfortunately, many of these companies will fight this law because their sales will be reduced. Most products nowadays are "made for the dump", a term used by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff. If products are no longer designed to fail, consumers will not have to buy products every six months due to faulty quality. The Story of Stuff is a great resource for learning more about the life cycle of products we use on a daily basis. Annie Leonard discusses the story of stuff, cosmetics, change, bottled water and even electronics, laying out the many problems with our current system of production. By reducing the amount of stuff we produce, reducing the amount of chemicals that go into the stuff we produce, and reducing the overall waste (Through making products recyclable and/or reusable), we can help reduce the carbon emissions produced on a global scale greatly.
Cracking down on carbon emissions is an obvious way to help slow down climate change. Sadly, many companies oppose reductions because they are not concerned about the environment, but instead are concerned about making as much money as possible. Not only will companies steadfastly oppose carbon emission reductions, but the enforcement of reusable or recyclable products will also be fought. As consumers we must use our buying power to support the companies that are more environmentally friendly and willing to help change as opposed to the any companies that refuse to act.
"Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billions tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero." (Bill Gates)
"IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=251>.
Leonard, Annie. "Story Of Stuff." Story Of Stuff. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://storyofstuff.org/>.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Anti-Fracking
10/11/13
Previously we discussed the Pro-Fracking views from Michael, a representative from Breakthrough Institute, now I'd like to focus on the Anti-Fracking side with Kate, from the National Resource Defence Council which was briefly mentioned last time. NRDC's representative (Kate from now on), is in congruence with Michael's assertion about natural gas being better than coal. Both sides agree that coal is extremely dirty, and that natural gas is the clear better energy source between the two.
However, their views differ from this starting point in a number of ways. The first is related to the energy transition that Michael was so supportive of. Kate agrees that there is a need for an energy transition, but Kate sees an issue in going from coal, a very polluting energy source, to natural gas, an energy source that is still bad for the environment. Instead, she feels it is important to skip the increase in natural gas and go straight for the renewable sources like wind and solar. By skipping natural gas, she believes we can minimize the environmental affect of the world's increasing energy usage through focusing on supporting and bettering clean, renewable energy instead.
Regulations is another extremely important topic in regards to fracking from Kate's point of view. While she doesn't necessarily want fracking to become prevalent because she believes renewables are a better path, she is realistic in her views. By regulating fracking to a greater extent than it currently is, as well as these regulations actually being enforced, she sees fracking as a somewhat acceptable future energy source. The idea that "Better is not good enough" is something that resonates with Kate in regards to the fracking debate. Even though natural gas is clearly better than coal, and both sides agree on this, that doesn't mean that natural gas is still good enough for the future. In regards to regulations, Kate did not address the issue of methane being released from the wellheads where fracking occurs. One of the big regulations that can be implemented would be from monitoring this escape of methane and regulate it to make sure it is below a certain acceptable level. "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period," (EPA, 2013). If this methane release is not regulated, then fracking can have a much larger environmental impact than already anticipated by the industry. These wellheads are not regulated or monitored right now, so the extent of methane release is unknown, but could be detrimental to the climate. These regulations that Kate is pushing for, could help stop this unnecessary amount of emissions.
"NRDC's top priority is to address climate change," (Kate) Through regulating fracking and natural gas extraction to reduce the amount of CO2 and methane produced and emitted, innovation in the industry will come about. With increased ordinances focusing on emissions, the fracking industry will be forced to focus on more environmentally friendly technology, until we have a way of extracting natural gas at a much more safe way than currently employed. Not only is this a positive for the environment, but it also coincides with Michael's viewpoint, the pro-fracker side.
Innovation can lead to using the best available technology which will not only help fracking in America, but also fracking around the world including Africa. As discussed in Pro-Fracking, Africa is believed to be able to completely skip coal energy and move straight to natural gas. If natural gas extraction technology continues to improve, it will greatly reduce the emissions throughout the world, including Africa where this technology has not yet been implemented on a super meaningful level.
"I believe... that it's not safe to compress explosive gases and store them underneath and beside a lake that serves as the drinking water for a hundred thousand people. We can talk about the economic benefits of fracking, but if we're making people sick and we're giving people cancer, if we're giving people asthma, if we're contributing to pre-term birth and so forth, then are we not creating medical costs in addition?" (Dr. Steinberg)
"Methane Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html>.
Previously we discussed the Pro-Fracking views from Michael, a representative from Breakthrough Institute, now I'd like to focus on the Anti-Fracking side with Kate, from the National Resource Defence Council which was briefly mentioned last time. NRDC's representative (Kate from now on), is in congruence with Michael's assertion about natural gas being better than coal. Both sides agree that coal is extremely dirty, and that natural gas is the clear better energy source between the two.
However, their views differ from this starting point in a number of ways. The first is related to the energy transition that Michael was so supportive of. Kate agrees that there is a need for an energy transition, but Kate sees an issue in going from coal, a very polluting energy source, to natural gas, an energy source that is still bad for the environment. Instead, she feels it is important to skip the increase in natural gas and go straight for the renewable sources like wind and solar. By skipping natural gas, she believes we can minimize the environmental affect of the world's increasing energy usage through focusing on supporting and bettering clean, renewable energy instead.
Regulations is another extremely important topic in regards to fracking from Kate's point of view. While she doesn't necessarily want fracking to become prevalent because she believes renewables are a better path, she is realistic in her views. By regulating fracking to a greater extent than it currently is, as well as these regulations actually being enforced, she sees fracking as a somewhat acceptable future energy source. The idea that "Better is not good enough" is something that resonates with Kate in regards to the fracking debate. Even though natural gas is clearly better than coal, and both sides agree on this, that doesn't mean that natural gas is still good enough for the future. In regards to regulations, Kate did not address the issue of methane being released from the wellheads where fracking occurs. One of the big regulations that can be implemented would be from monitoring this escape of methane and regulate it to make sure it is below a certain acceptable level. "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period," (EPA, 2013). If this methane release is not regulated, then fracking can have a much larger environmental impact than already anticipated by the industry. These wellheads are not regulated or monitored right now, so the extent of methane release is unknown, but could be detrimental to the climate. These regulations that Kate is pushing for, could help stop this unnecessary amount of emissions.
"NRDC's top priority is to address climate change," (Kate) Through regulating fracking and natural gas extraction to reduce the amount of CO2 and methane produced and emitted, innovation in the industry will come about. With increased ordinances focusing on emissions, the fracking industry will be forced to focus on more environmentally friendly technology, until we have a way of extracting natural gas at a much more safe way than currently employed. Not only is this a positive for the environment, but it also coincides with Michael's viewpoint, the pro-fracker side.
Innovation can lead to using the best available technology which will not only help fracking in America, but also fracking around the world including Africa. As discussed in Pro-Fracking, Africa is believed to be able to completely skip coal energy and move straight to natural gas. If natural gas extraction technology continues to improve, it will greatly reduce the emissions throughout the world, including Africa where this technology has not yet been implemented on a super meaningful level.
Overall, it seems as though both sides of the fracking debacle have some focus on being environmentally friendly. Whether that is just a facade so their reputation isn't tarnished, or if it is a true belief and focus is hard to tell, either way, the earth wins. Whatever the reasons, if both sides push for less emissions and greener regulations, the REASONS behind it are just a passing thought for climate change. As seen from Summits on Tenth, the fracking debate is not a simple black and white argument, but instead is a much more complicated slew of opinions with similarities and differences that cause both sides to butt heads with each other.
"Methane Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html>.
Pro-Fracking
10/08/13
Fracking is one of the most controversial and talked about topics related to energy. There are people who both oppose and support the methods fervently. With this intense rift of believe between the two sides, comes a dilemma for bystanders - Who or what can people on the outside of fracking believe when both sides state "facts" that contradict one another? By sitting down a person supports fracking and a person who opposes it, we can begin to better understand the views of either side.
Representatives from both Breakthrough Institute and the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC from now on) sat down to discuss their fracking views for Summits on Tenth. Some important and interesting points were brought up by both sides. Starting with the pro fracking side of the debate, one of the most emphasized points that the representative from Breakthrough Institute (Michael from now on) discussed was fracking in relation to coal. From the pro-fracking side, they see natural gas as substantially better than coal to the point where it validates the use of fracking to obtain natural gas. Michael uses the example from past energy transitions where we went from wood to coal burning energy. He feels the same is necessary for the future - Moving from coal to natural gas as our major energy supply source.
The other very important point that Michael made was the idea of both Regulation and Innovation in the natural gas field. Through bettering regulations to become safer and more environmentally friendly, as well as innovating the technologies to do the same thing, Michael sees natural gas as a fantastic opportunity at progressing energy availability around the world. Not only will fracking supply America with energy, but it will greatly increase energy availability around the world, specifically in Africa where they can skip using coal altogether. Obviously, if Africa could skip using coal as an energy source and move straight towards natural gas, that would be a huge environmentally friendly advancement. While natural gas isn't the perfect or cleanest energy source, both sides of the fracking argument agree that it is substantially better than coal.
When prompted about renewable energies like using solar panels, Michael sees solar energy as an energy of the future, but not before it becomes cleaner. The combination of an abundance of current effective natural gas extraction techniques and the toxic chemicals currently in solar panels, he feels that natural gas is the safer and smarter approach to the world's energy supply. The energy transition from coal to natural gas and then natural gas to renewables will take time, according to pro-fracking views. As someone who isn't too well informed about either side of the fracking debate, this was a slight shock. The idea that pro-fracking viewpoints still see renewable energies as better than natural gas, but still push for natural gas instead, is confusing. Pushing for natural gas instead of going directly for renewable energy sources seems to be counterproductive in the long run, and even the people promoting natural gas see that, but for whatever reason, still push for the lesser energy source.
An interesting argument Michael makes is in reference to increased efficiency in regards to energy. the idea of the Rebound Effect is brought up to discuss the negative impacts associated with increased efficiency according to him. His claim was that with increased efficiency, the amount of energy used will not only not decrease, but will probably increase. Instead of a manufacturing plant, or a train only running for twelve or fourteen hours a day, the plant or train will run twenty-four hours a day because of the increase in efficiency, producing a net increase in emissions. This logic can be seen in regards to flood insurance in major cities that are susceptible to floods, like New York City. By increasing flood insurance coverage in the area, instead of dissuading people from moving to flood susceptible areas, it actually increases the amount of people to move there because they now have a safety if there is a flood. Whether or not this is true is yet to be seen, but is an interesting point nonetheless.
In the next blog, Anti-Fracking will be discussed from the NRDC's representative, Kate.
"Comprehensive and robust regulations already exist for nearly every aspect of natural exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing." (American Petroleum Institute)
Fracking is one of the most controversial and talked about topics related to energy. There are people who both oppose and support the methods fervently. With this intense rift of believe between the two sides, comes a dilemma for bystanders - Who or what can people on the outside of fracking believe when both sides state "facts" that contradict one another? By sitting down a person supports fracking and a person who opposes it, we can begin to better understand the views of either side.
Representatives from both Breakthrough Institute and the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC from now on) sat down to discuss their fracking views for Summits on Tenth. Some important and interesting points were brought up by both sides. Starting with the pro fracking side of the debate, one of the most emphasized points that the representative from Breakthrough Institute (Michael from now on) discussed was fracking in relation to coal. From the pro-fracking side, they see natural gas as substantially better than coal to the point where it validates the use of fracking to obtain natural gas. Michael uses the example from past energy transitions where we went from wood to coal burning energy. He feels the same is necessary for the future - Moving from coal to natural gas as our major energy supply source.
The other very important point that Michael made was the idea of both Regulation and Innovation in the natural gas field. Through bettering regulations to become safer and more environmentally friendly, as well as innovating the technologies to do the same thing, Michael sees natural gas as a fantastic opportunity at progressing energy availability around the world. Not only will fracking supply America with energy, but it will greatly increase energy availability around the world, specifically in Africa where they can skip using coal altogether. Obviously, if Africa could skip using coal as an energy source and move straight towards natural gas, that would be a huge environmentally friendly advancement. While natural gas isn't the perfect or cleanest energy source, both sides of the fracking argument agree that it is substantially better than coal.
When prompted about renewable energies like using solar panels, Michael sees solar energy as an energy of the future, but not before it becomes cleaner. The combination of an abundance of current effective natural gas extraction techniques and the toxic chemicals currently in solar panels, he feels that natural gas is the safer and smarter approach to the world's energy supply. The energy transition from coal to natural gas and then natural gas to renewables will take time, according to pro-fracking views. As someone who isn't too well informed about either side of the fracking debate, this was a slight shock. The idea that pro-fracking viewpoints still see renewable energies as better than natural gas, but still push for natural gas instead, is confusing. Pushing for natural gas instead of going directly for renewable energy sources seems to be counterproductive in the long run, and even the people promoting natural gas see that, but for whatever reason, still push for the lesser energy source.
An interesting argument Michael makes is in reference to increased efficiency in regards to energy. the idea of the Rebound Effect is brought up to discuss the negative impacts associated with increased efficiency according to him. His claim was that with increased efficiency, the amount of energy used will not only not decrease, but will probably increase. Instead of a manufacturing plant, or a train only running for twelve or fourteen hours a day, the plant or train will run twenty-four hours a day because of the increase in efficiency, producing a net increase in emissions. This logic can be seen in regards to flood insurance in major cities that are susceptible to floods, like New York City. By increasing flood insurance coverage in the area, instead of dissuading people from moving to flood susceptible areas, it actually increases the amount of people to move there because they now have a safety if there is a flood. Whether or not this is true is yet to be seen, but is an interesting point nonetheless.
In the next blog, Anti-Fracking will be discussed from the NRDC's representative, Kate.
"Comprehensive and robust regulations already exist for nearly every aspect of natural exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing." (American Petroleum Institute)
"Crutches"
10/01/13
An interesting idea that came up in class was the idea that everyone needs a "crutch" to get through the day. Whether it be television, drinking, smoking, playing your favorite video game or reading your favorite book, the idea that everyone needs some form of escape is an interesting realization. Why do we watch movies or television shows? To escape from our daily lives for a variety of reasons. These reasons range from being unhappy about our current lives, to just wanting to "veg out", or even just to kill some time. The first being something that I feel a lot of people struggle with on a daily basis.
Sometimes the weekend isn't enough of a break for many people, so they need to find something that will help them relax during the work week. By watching T.V shows or sitting down and enjoying a move, we can completely forget about our current situation and just enjoy whatever is going on on the screen. If we have a bad day, did poorly on a test, or just need to de-stress from a hard day's work, a movie or T.V show is a perfect way of recharging. Sometimes these made up situations like in movies or T.V shows either don't work or are not enough to help someone relax. Instead they need to make something up themselves. Some people would rather indulge in their favorite author or genre and just escape into a made up world using their imaginations. They could become a secret agent or a sports star, a world renowned singer or even president. No matter what, the only important thing is that it helps people relax.
Many people will play video games as well as indulge in other crutches in order to help de-stress and escape their lives. A prime example of this is from the variety of video game clubs on campus that people belong to and indulge in once a week. This is a great way to escape because in many games you take the form of a character whose life is now in your hands entirely. We can completely forget about our own real lives when we control these characters
While these crutches seem to be generally harmless, there are other crutches that people find themselves indulging in just to get through the long days. As with most things, there are positives and negatives that go along with the territory. Many people find themselves using hard core drugs in order to help the day go by. This leads to unhealthy and negative addictions which many people are unable to handle.
This phenomenon can be seen fairly easily at a place like RPI, where students and teachers alike are challenged on a daily basis both with classes and managing school work and fun. There are many ways that people relax, or recharge throughout the week. As the week goes by, just walking on campus it is noticeable that there are more and more people outside just relaxing in the grass or out and about doing something other than work. This is to help them stay focused for the whole week and not get burnt out from working so hard. Many students and teachers have rigorous classes to teach and learn as well as a rigorous schedule. Without a crutch, performance throughout the week would greatly decrease due to stress and an overload of work. By indulging in one form of crutch or another, we can get a much needed break from the stresses of everyday allowing us to be more productive in the long run.
"When we get too caught up in the busyness of the world, we lose connection with one another - and ourselves." (Jack Kornfield)
An interesting idea that came up in class was the idea that everyone needs a "crutch" to get through the day. Whether it be television, drinking, smoking, playing your favorite video game or reading your favorite book, the idea that everyone needs some form of escape is an interesting realization. Why do we watch movies or television shows? To escape from our daily lives for a variety of reasons. These reasons range from being unhappy about our current lives, to just wanting to "veg out", or even just to kill some time. The first being something that I feel a lot of people struggle with on a daily basis.
Sometimes the weekend isn't enough of a break for many people, so they need to find something that will help them relax during the work week. By watching T.V shows or sitting down and enjoying a move, we can completely forget about our current situation and just enjoy whatever is going on on the screen. If we have a bad day, did poorly on a test, or just need to de-stress from a hard day's work, a movie or T.V show is a perfect way of recharging. Sometimes these made up situations like in movies or T.V shows either don't work or are not enough to help someone relax. Instead they need to make something up themselves. Some people would rather indulge in their favorite author or genre and just escape into a made up world using their imaginations. They could become a secret agent or a sports star, a world renowned singer or even president. No matter what, the only important thing is that it helps people relax.
Many people will play video games as well as indulge in other crutches in order to help de-stress and escape their lives. A prime example of this is from the variety of video game clubs on campus that people belong to and indulge in once a week. This is a great way to escape because in many games you take the form of a character whose life is now in your hands entirely. We can completely forget about our own real lives when we control these characters
While these crutches seem to be generally harmless, there are other crutches that people find themselves indulging in just to get through the long days. As with most things, there are positives and negatives that go along with the territory. Many people find themselves using hard core drugs in order to help the day go by. This leads to unhealthy and negative addictions which many people are unable to handle.
This phenomenon can be seen fairly easily at a place like RPI, where students and teachers alike are challenged on a daily basis both with classes and managing school work and fun. There are many ways that people relax, or recharge throughout the week. As the week goes by, just walking on campus it is noticeable that there are more and more people outside just relaxing in the grass or out and about doing something other than work. This is to help them stay focused for the whole week and not get burnt out from working so hard. Many students and teachers have rigorous classes to teach and learn as well as a rigorous schedule. Without a crutch, performance throughout the week would greatly decrease due to stress and an overload of work. By indulging in one form of crutch or another, we can get a much needed break from the stresses of everyday allowing us to be more productive in the long run.
"When we get too caught up in the busyness of the world, we lose connection with one another - and ourselves." (Jack Kornfield)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)