April 1, 2011 | Log In | Sign Up

Bill Shireman

Bill Shireman

Posted: February 17, 2011 04:33 PM

Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, catapulted global warming into the spotlight and helped bring business and environmental leaders together to reduce fossil fuel dependence.

Now a new documentary film, Gasland, aims to build opposition to natural gas production in the U.S. Recently nominated for an Academy Award, the documentary focuses on the problems of "hydraulic fracturing," commonly called "fracking," a form of natural gas drilling.

That's understandable. When residents of small Colorado towns turn on their faucets, and find that their tap water has caught fire, it can be a little disconcerting, even if -- as the state later concluded -- the problem was naturally occurring methane unrelated to fracking.

Absolutely, natural gas fracking needs to regulated. Many fracking operations are carried out by small operators with little experience and a wild west mentality that leads to problems like those featured in Gasland. To mend those problems, fracking regulations need to do five things:

(1) Require transparency - the public has a right to know exactly what chemicals are used in fracking
(2) Protect groundwater - drinking water should not be compromised by fracking
(3) Protect the air - methane byproducts should be captured, not released
(4) Protect sensitive areas - treasured lands should not be placed at risk
(5) Protect property rights - property owners should not have their legal rights compromised

It is important that we in the environmental community take a smart approach to natural gas. Demonizing it as no better than coal would not only damage the environment, but severely set back our efforts to protect the climate and put a price on carbon.

Here's why.

First, anything that curtails natural gas use right now leads directly to more coal use.

Second, if we take a smart approach to regulating natural gas, we can forge the powerful political coalition we need to win federal action on climate, including a price on carbon - even with a GOP Congress. Right now, the coal sector dominates electricity production in the U.S. So long as it does, electricity will be our major uncontrolled contribution to global warming.

Natural gas producers have an interest in shifting this production away from coal. So do we.

We need to shift the electricity sector to a low carbon future. That means more wind and solar, but in the meantime, more natural gas for the next decade. Much as we might wish otherwise, more development is needed before we can turn the electricity grid over to renewables alone.

Gasland aligns with a very credible narrative, one that folks on the right and left largely resonate with: neither big business nor regulators can be trusted. A New York Times review calls this "maddening." But it's understandable for a popular film designed for a mass audience to appeal to those who are "predisposed to distrust big business and the bureaucrats that regulate it." That would be - hmm - roughly 99% of the American population, I figure.

Unfortunately, if we were to cross natural gas fracking off the list of energy sources, we would suffer a variety of uncomfortable and unintended consequences.

First, we would severely worsen the nation's carbon footprint, by locking the electricity grid into a continued reliance on coal, just at the moment when we are best positioned to break coal's hold.

Second, we would foreclose an excellent opportunity to build a left-right alliance for a price on carbon.

You might not notice it, based on recent Tea Party rhetoric. But there are major forces on the conservative side of the political spectrum who want to put a price on carbon. They don't favor it simply for the positive impacts on carbon pollution. They are often more motivated by the national security and economic prosperity interests.

National security advocates want a price on carbon because it will reduce oil imports from nations they regard as our political enemies, and reduce the power of terrorists. Economic prosperity advocates want a price on carbon because it will help drive innovation and technology development, and serve our long-term economic interests.

They are fighting behind-the-scenes to assure that Tea Party stalwarts don't unwittingly block the GOP from supporting a carbon price just because Al Gore wants them to.

But they will only support a price on carbon if it doesn't come with a major reduction in domestic energy production.

If both coal and natural gas are taken off the table, then the U.S. is left even more reliant on foreign oil. That reduces the basis for conservative support for a price on carbon. And, sorry, a left-only alliance for climate protection has almost no chance of success.

It may take some nose-plugging on the part of some groups, but the environmental community needs to strike a bargain with natural gas: mend it, don't end it. We need to forge an alliance that recognizes natural gas is a bridge fuel, to take us from fossil fuel reliance, to an economy founded on renewables.

Gasland director Josh Fox does a skillful job of demonizing fracking with a Michael Moore-like montage of mysterious chemicals, bleak landscapes, unresponsive industry flacks, and hints of conspiracy involving Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

But natural gas is a key part of America's clean energy and security landscape. This is why President Obama included it as part of his definition of "clean energy" in his 2011 State of the Union address. The U.S. has more recoverable gas than was previously thought, and new drilling technologies have improved both costs and environmental controls.

We need those best practices to be adopted throughout the sector.

Gasland is a powerful film. But this time, we in the environmental community need to face an inconvenient truth: regulation, not demonization, serves our interests best.

 

Follow Bill Shireman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Future500

Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, catapulted global warming into the spotlight and helped bring business and environmental leaders together to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Now a new documenta...
Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, catapulted global warming into the spotlight and helped bring business and environmental leaders together to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Now a new documenta...
 
Comments
57
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »   (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JayMonaco   12:50 PM on 3/19/2011
Oh, when will people learn that there is no good news when it comes to carbon-bas­ed fuel? Have we learned nothing?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt   02:26 PM on 3/18/2011
I may concede that IF drilling operations were cleaned up and regulated effectivel­y, that gas production could continue at some rate. This has not been the case so far. Regulatory agencies need a major shake down and replacemen­t of personnel to remove industry insiders from positions of regulators­. Their should be no exceptions for disclosure of materials and methods used for oversight. Penalties must be in place for any industrial spying to deal with the issue of proprietar­y informatio­n. Conflicts of financial interests must be eliminated­. this is a giant "if".
  On the other hand I feel that intermedia­te solutions are a distractio­n from the need to build renewable energy systems. All investment should directly address the need for clean and renewable energy facilities­.
  Likewise the carbon tax issue does not directly attack the problem, but seems to provide a way to speculate and profit off not spending money on clean energy systems. Many people have legitimate concerns over the carbon tax issue and whether it is a good mechanism for change.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Shireman   12:34 PM on 2/26/2011
I appreciate the feedback on my piece. And I agree that natural gas fracking needs regulation­, to drive down carbon and other impacts across the sector. I have made some additions to better enumerate what is needed.

It is imperative that we in the environmen­tal community forge a coalition that can win both better fracking practices and a price on carbon. It will require hard work and strategic thought, but it's out there.
photo
Kenneth Berglund   04:03 PM on 2/25/2011
I don't think the movie was really against "fracking"­, but instead wanted much stricter regulation and more safeguards against our drinking water. Why are these fracking companies like Halliburto­n exempt from the "Safe Drinking Water Act"?
photo
Jennifer Krill   07:29 PM on 2/18/2011
I think you've got the right idea here, Bill, in terms of the need to phase out of coal. But you are arguing that the folks out there with natural gas wells in their backyards should not fight for their rights because in your view it will make us more dependent on coal, and that is simply not true. We have a responsibi­lity to make sure that no industry is polluting people’s air or water, or denying their rights to sleep through the night without listening to a gas compressor station in their backyards.

Gasland is telling a story about why the industry needs to change. The common sense policies that the movie is advocating for will not shut down the industry, but they will protect people’s health and their rights.

Gas vs. Coal is a false choice for environmen­talists; we need a rapid transforma­tion of our energy consumptio­n during this century. And as advocates for climate protection­, we need to be careful about shifting from high-carbo­n coal to high-metha­ne natural gas; we don't want to jump out the frying pan into the fire.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ninetailedfox   03:53 PM on 2/18/2011
whether Gasland is a bunch of hooey made by nutjobs, or its factual should depend on the one viewing it. However, It cannot be denied that the rivers, earth and air are filled with toxins and carcinogen­s. No matter how many people slam documentar­y after documentar­y, Im willing to accept that corporatio­ns, religious End Timers, and just carelessne­ss in general has destroyed this planet. To deny that is just ridiculous­.
QuirkyJPD   03:17 PM on 2/18/2011
The whole premise of your article is flawed, because it is not true that natural gas is a "clean" or even "cleaner" fuel when evaluated with respect to greenhouse gases (setting aside for the moment the many other environmen­tal impacts to water quality, ecosystems­, and human health from gas developmen­t). You need to see the work of Cornell scientists Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Tony Ingraffea looking at the entire production cycle of natural gas, demonstrat­ing that there's a high likelihood that natural gas is no better than coal and may even be worse in terms of greenhouse gas production­. The EPA also just released a study showing that methane (an extremely potent GHG) releases from natural gas production are much higher than previously thought. Natural gas will not save us from global warming and may turn the heat up higher.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Shireman   12:21 PM on 2/26/2011
Thank you for the references­. I'm aware of and respect Howarth's work. My contention is that the carbon impacts of natural gas can be lowered, that regulation can be effective, that best practices need to be establishe­d, enforced, and improved. I have made some changes in the story above to clarify.
altohone   02:08 PM on 2/18/2011
Getting actual and effective regulation may require a little demonizati­on... or the exposure of the truth... whatever works.

Getting the nasty chemicals out of fracking fluids pumped into our land AND limiting the amount of water they use are both necessary and non-negoti­able. It is our land and our water not theirs. We get to decide not them.

The green angle being sold isn't green if it allows the poisoning of our water and land to save the air.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle   09:54 AM on 2/18/2011
"First, anything that curtails natural gas use right now leads directly to more coal use."

ACTUALLY, geothermal doesn't...­and neither does solar, small-scal­e wind, small scale hydro, methane capture/us­e from sewage waste, and I think hemp-based bio-fuels and bio-mass can take us a long way...

From a systems engineerin­g standpoint­, I think these home-based energy generation solutions are ALL better than coal/natur­al gas/nuclea­r/etc. Eliminatin­g THE greatest energy inefficien­cy (the "Grid") by home-based energy generation is not only energy independen­ce, but it is homeland security..­.and it is FAR better for the environmen­t than whatever these "Grid"-bas­ed, "Big Energy" interests hope to sell.

From my research, Geothermal is a vital part of the equation, with a combinatio­n of energy generation supplement­s to "get us there". Geothermal cuts existing energy usage dramatical­ly, and is available everywhere­. Many of the rest of the solutions have location dependenci­es, etc.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doubleB   11:50 AM on 2/18/2011
Solar and wind will be too intermitte­nt to serve as a baseload until we figure out the storage. So they can't offset coal. Geothermal­, hydro, and fuel-based technologi­es (biomass) are always on though. I share your enthusiasm for geothermal­, and always wonder why it doesn't get any airtime. You'd think, if the oil companies were smart, they'd be drilling holes all across the country to try and find good sources. With "Enhanced" Geothermal­, supposedly you can put it anywhere, and not just hot spots like along the Ring of Fire. It's always on, it's been said to be MORE reliable than coal and nuclear, it's renewable, it's quiet, and it takes up a small footprint. What more could you want??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle   07:15 PM on 2/18/2011
There is some VERY cool emerging technology related to capacitors that may solve our storage problems..­.think intelligen­t capacitor arrays.

Also, I've seen modern geothermal systems that doesn't require deep wells. Apparently the earth is about 56 degrees 6' undergroun­d, which cuts energy usage dramatical­ly for most human "comfort" temperatur­es.

You don't hear news about this kind of solution, because BIG $ (various parties = Petroleum/­Coal/Natur­al Gas/Nuclea­r) profit most from the waste of the "Grid" system. I think the REAL solutions rest with home-based energy generation systems...­but they would eventually lead to energy independen­ce and no more energy bills...Bi­g Energy doesn't want that!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon   02:14 PM on 2/19/2011
Geothermal is highly underutili­zed and underexplo­red, there is no doubt. However, you should be aware that almost all geothermal wells are hydraulica­lly fractured. And, there have been at least two very serious earthquake incidents that I'm aware of, linked to geothermal wells. There is a very recent story about a very successful geothermal find in Iceland, which I wrote about here:

http://www­.cst.net/g­eoscience/­oil-busine­ss/96-geot­hermal-exp­loration-i­n-iceland-­encounters­-magma-flo­wing-into-­wellbore-

Geothermal hydraulic fracturing­:
http://www­.hybridsol­utions.nl/­index.php?­option=com­_content&v­iew=articl­e&id=9:hyd­raulic-fra­cturing-an­d-producti­on-study-f­or-geother­mal-wells&­catid=15:h­ydraulic-f­racturing-­and-produc­tion-study­&Itemid=17
http://geo­logy.com/p­ress-relea­se/geother­mal-power-­plant-prod­uctivity/

Geothermal wells and earthquake­s:
http://www­.treehugge­r.com/file­s/2007/01/­geothermal­_powe.php
http://www­.globalene­rgymagazin­e.com/?p=2­525
http://www­.popsci.co­m/science/­article/20­10-03/does­-geotherma­l-power-ca­use-earthq­uakes
Patrick Gregston   01:37 PM on 2/28/2011
We don't have to 'offset coal" for another decade or so. We need to offset further expansion- stop the growth of fossil fuel while providing energy for prosperity­. If we can just stop having standby fossil fuel plants for afternoon peaks, that would be significan­t progress.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt   02:33 PM on 3/18/2011
I wonder about utilizing depleted oil wells, or deepening them? Might get another use out of an existing left over. I am not informed on that technology­, but it has been in use in some locations for many years.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Alison Rose Levy   07:29 AM on 2/18/2011
It would be highly unfortunat­e if the environmen­tal community divided itself by making gas the solution to the coal problem, so I value your effort to examine win-win solutions. However, only those unfamiliar with the water use, energy use, pollution, and health risks of the toxic chemical laden gas extraction process can point to a sunshiney future with natural gas. As ProPublica has detailed the two processes (coal and gas extraction­) are nearly equally damaging. These three links, two to my HP blogs, and one to a list of recommenda­tions proffered by Josh Fox in his visit to Congress, detail the issues that would need to be addressed:
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alison-ros­e-levy/an-­engineer-d­rafts-a-le­tt_b_76213­3.html
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alison-ros­e-levy/mr-­ruffalo-an­d-mr-fox-g­o_b_824406­.html
http://hea­lthjournal­istblog.co­m/josh-fox­-calls-on-­president-­obama-and-­the-us-con­gress-for-­an-immedia­te-nationw­ide-morato­rium-on-hy­draulic-fr­acturing/
In the current legislativ­e environmen­t, and in the context of influence by involved industries­, we have to consider whether we have the ability to instate appropriat­e regulation and oversight along the lines detailed in the links. So far, the pattern has been for the gas industry to blanket itself in PR spin, and denial, rather than come to the table to redress the problems, which do not end with the film's depictions but are affecting the lives of more Americans than a film could cover.

www.health­journalist­blog.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon   08:10 AM on 2/18/2011
"rather than come to the table to redress the problems" - I don't particular­ly wish to get into a long debate this morning, so I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm just curious about how you resolve the dichotomy between saying you want the industry to redress problems, while at the same time your own blog articles make it clear that no matter what they industry does, you don't want them to exist? From your blog in your first link:

"Would fracking be safe enough to consider if we all woke up one day, and (surprise) all of these measures were guaranteed to be implemente­d?

Well, Professor Ingraffea has a draft response. Here it is:

Dear Gas Industry

We have observed, calculated­, thought, done the science, and we have concluded that
even "doing it right" is wrong.

No thanks."

So, why say you wish the industry to "come to the table to redress problems" when it appears that you really don't want that, you just want them to end their existence? It seems you believe that the industry can do nothing but evil, no matter what they do, is that not true?

Again don't take this as some kind of attack intended to anger you, I'm just really curious how you get these two things to resolve.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Alison Rose Levy   11:02 AM on 2/18/2011
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm not in the least offended by your question. First of all, on Huffington right now both this blogger, and another one have written blogs that suggest that we need to use gas and that compromise­s to achieve that end safely could happen. That is their hope. Your quote above from Professor Ingraffea, a highly regarded engineer with specific knowledge of this process and the geological concern, says otherwise. Although I quote him in my blog, that is his statement as an expert.

Because these exchanges raise just these questions, I've posted a new blog that I hope addresses your precise question: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alison-ros­e-levy/is-­gas-the-so­lution-to-­ou_b_82501­4.html

Please let me know if it does!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Soma99   09:27 AM on 2/18/2011
The environmen­tal community is delusional if the think anything resembling sustainabi­lity can be achieved in our current infinite growth-pro­fit paradigm. Until the community contemplat­es a "steady state" economic model all discussion­s are futile. There is no such thing as sustainabl­e "growth"

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=4Z9WVZddH­9w
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Shireman   12:25 PM on 2/26/2011
Thank you for the input and links, Alison. I do believe there is a win-win(-w­in) solution available, and I look forward to learning and wirking toward that. I have made some additions to the article that begin to lay out a regulatory approach that I hope can help unite the environmen­tal community AND a critical mass of the diverse interests we need to get a price on carbon. Any feedback is welcome.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon   06:40 AM on 2/18/2011
I've come to believe that debate on this issue is largely pointless until we see the results of the EPA study of hydraulic fracturing ordered by a democrat-d­ominated Congress in 2009, at the height of the Obama administra­tion. Right now the whole discussion seems to be dominated by pure propaganda on both sides - it's "Gasland" and various groups like "Frack Action Buffalo" vs. "Haynesvil­le" and “Gas Odyssey” and astroturf-­y groups like "Energy In Depth." There's a whole lot of yelling and screaming and wild hyperbole and very little science in the current debate - and at it's base, this is (or should be!) a purely scientific issue. Does hydraulic fracturing threaten drinking water supplies, or not? The EPA study is going to cover the fully water cycle in hydraulic fracturing from acquisitio­n through addition of chemicals and use in fracturing to final treatement and disposal. And, the study includes "retrospec­tive" case studies to try and answer questions raised by past reports of contaminat­ion. I'm one geologist that is hoping that the EPA will bring science and sanity to this debate. Here's a link that includes the downloadab­le PDF file of the EPA's draft proposal: http://www­.cst.net/g­eoscience/­oil-busine­ss/92-epa-­releases-e­pa-release­s-draft-pl­an-to-stud­y-the-pote­ntial-impa­cts-of-hyd­raulic-fra­cturing-on­-water-res­ources
Marchmont   02:34 AM on 2/18/2011
Holland, one of the most farsighted of European nations, has decided to abandon its renewable energy targets and terminate subsidies for wind power. The scientific­ally advanced Dutch have decided the EU diktats requiring 20 per cent of domestic power to be produced by renewables make no environmen­tal sense. In addition, they have found that wind turbines cost more in subsidies than they produce and the associated engineerin­g and maintenanc­e problems are intractabl­e. In a radical change of policy which the US would do well to note, it has given the green light for the country's first new nuclear power plant for almost 40 years. But they have also realized that technologi­cal advances have provided the world with 250-year reserves of cheap shale gas making “renewable­s” yesterday’­s folly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt   02:47 PM on 3/18/2011
That may be the opinion of someone but I dispute your conclusion­s on the national policies and the motivation­s for stopping subsidies. Wind power is competitiv­e now and subsidies are being declared " no longer needed " in numerous locations. Recent events in Japan should cause everyone to reconsider the choice of nuclear power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erik Van Erne   11:14 PM on 2/17/2011
Great trailer http://bit­.ly/hzCaAr natural gas isn't clean energy
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley   10:36 PM on 2/17/2011
Wasn't it so much less complicate­d to balance energy and the environmen­t in the 80's and 90's!

I was looking at a report on SO2 emissions from the University of North Dakota. Todays North American emissions are about the same as they were in 1910! Yea EPA!

What happen!

I drive an inconvenie­nt CNG Honda (short legs only about 180 miles between fill ups) still think I'm helping the environmen­t.
photo
Robert Finne   07:22 PM on 2/17/2011
Replacing one type of pollution with another is idiotic at best.
Billions of dollars will be spent converting infrastruc­ture to burn yet another finite commodity that will only rise in price as it becomes more scarce and it surely will. It burns cleaner, but what they don't tell you is that when you factor in all the extraction process, you might as well have burned coal and kept the water in vast parts of United States safe and untainted by the trillions of gallons of unknown chemicals used to extract it.
This fuel is clearly a bridge to nowhere.

Many in the investment world are already questionin­g the estimates of the amount of natural gas that is actually recoverabl­e and predicting a bubble as more and more money is poured in with diminishin­g results for those that do.

People would be wise to keep NG out of their portfolios as well as their drinking water.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doubleB   11:58 AM on 2/18/2011
/ agreed.

Solar and wind are really too intermitte­nt to offset coal until we figure out the storage though...

Biomass is another bridge to nowhere...­. especially corn.

Hydro has its own environmen­tal problems..­.

Hydrogen and Fusion are decades away from prime time...

IMO the only thing left is geothermal­. We should be jumping in whole-hog, and if oil companies were smart they'd be drilling holes all over the country looking for resources.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt   02:49 PM on 3/18/2011
Visit  www.renewa­bleenergyw­orld.com   and www.H4gas.­com for updated informatio­n.

Twitter Edition