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>.
No comments:
Post a Comment