Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve P on December 14, 2019 at 15:09

I understand the headline grabbing aspect of this article, but I’m not sure what its point is.  The headline would suggest that NG is “dirtier” than coal, and that the growing emissions from NG is really, really bad.  But every MCF of NG that displaces coal is a huge plus for the environment.  To the extent that NG is used for heating homes, what are the choices?  Fuel oil or electricity.  No contest between NG and fuel oil for environment friendliness.  And, for electrical heating of homes, when you step back and look at the big picture, is this more or less friendly for the environment.   It depends on how the electricity is generated, and how efficient the backup power for the utility is generated.  Back-up generators are generally far less efficient that a straight NG fired power plant.  

I am also amused by the reference to “industrial users.”  what is the point of this comment?  I was unaware that solar or wind could now be used as a feedstock for chemical plants.  What is the point of even mentioning that?  Perhaps a huge global recession would reduce the need for the products of chemical plants, and that would help the environment?

It seems to me that this article (I didn’t and won’t bother to read the entire article on Salon) attempts to grab a headline rather than presenting information helpful to both consumers and policy makers.

The “inconvenient truth” is that global emissions in the future are dominated by emissions from China and India, not the US or UK.  China has current plans to build new coal fired power plants over the next 5 years that will exceed the current emissions from the entire EU.  India isn’t far behind.

I agree that every nation in the world needs to take substantial steps to control emissions.  I fail to see how this article motivates that.

As an added bonus, Salon manages to have a quote from Michael “hockey puck” Mann.

Checking my Fitbit - suspect my heart rate is up from this.  Burning a little energy myself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2019 at 15:20

The point of the article is really pretty simple.  And straight forward.  As coal use declines, something else has to supplant it as the major domestic CO2 producer.  And even though NG is a significantly better replacement, it is still a major emitter of CO2 and, perhaps more importantly, methane.  At some point in the not too distant future many stake holders will have to admit that we missed opportunities to incentivize a move away from coal and to NG and that we ignored or dismissed the ability of renewable energy sources to compete at the market level. 

What other countries are doing regarding their GHG emissions is inconsequential.  Kind of like blaming that driver that ran the red light and caused the wreck that killed you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by full name on December 14, 2019 at 17:48

Everyone should look at the articles in Salon.com.

Salon is an American news and opinion website, created by David Talbot in 1995. It publishes articles on U.S. politics, culture, and current events and has a politically progressive, liberal editorial stance.

Below are a few of the headlines today.

Move over, peak oil. Scientists say "peak livestock" must arrive this decade to limit global heating

"Livestock numbers need to peak very soon and thereafter decline substantially."

or

UN: Climate change will create “new great divergence” between rich and poor

Demonstrations and civil unrest across the world is proof that societies are not functioning as they should

or

Trump’s Interior Department stacks environmental panel with anti-environmentalists

Conflicts of interest abound among members of the advisory board for the controversial Bears Ears monument

not exactly an unbiased web site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2019 at 3:24

And not a far right one.  Yes, Salon leans left but it also is a good glimpse at where a lot of the electorate are headed.  Livestock are certainly part of the CO@ equation and one that the right likes to make fun of but it is a serious situation so much so that there are a number of institutions working how to change gut bacteria in ungulates.

Global GHG emissions from the livestock sector increased by 51 percent between 1961 and 2010, spurred by a 54 percent increase in methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock manure. Moreover, approximately one gigaton of carbon dioxide equivalent worth of animal-based foods is wasted globally every year.

It is a given that much of the damage associated by global warming will impact poorer countries more so than those that are richer and more responsible for GHG emissions. 

And yes, it is a fact, that this administration is running off the scientists and replacing them with partisan political hacks.

I find the bias in Salon much closer to the truth than that of the right wing media that publishes the slanted news from which you choose your examples.

You mean this controversy?

The controversy:

You might be thinking, co-management sounds better than a mere advisory role. Why don't the tribes want this? 

Three reasons:

First, because the two tribal leaders who will serve on the proposed management council are to be selected from the two tribes having reservation land in San Juan County: the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute. By contrast, the Obama proclamation called for the appointment of one representative from each of the tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. The resulting five-person Commission specifically included members of the Zuni and Hopi tribes, both of whom have ancestral ties to the Bears Ears region. The ancient structures and artifacts protected by the original Bears Ears National Monument? The vast majority of those cultural resources were constructed by the ancestors of today's Pueblo peoples, who do not live in Utah but whose ties to the area remain strong. The Curtis Bill also excludes members of the Uintah and Ouray Ute tribe who live in Utah, but whose headquarters lie outside San Juan County.

Additionally, the tribes claim (accurately) that Trump, Zinke, and the Utah delegation will staff the management council with Natives who share their anti-monument views. If the first hearing on the Curtis bill is any indication, they have just cause for concern.

Utah Congressman Rob Bishop, Chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee, invited two Natives to testify at the first hearing on Jan. 9; both opposed the monument, and neither was a member of a sovereign tribal government. It was not until House Democrats demanded another hearing on the bill that elected leaders from tribes outside San Juan County, Utah were invited to testify. 

Tony Small, the vice chair of the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee, criticized Curtis's strategy thusly: “How would you like it if Russia or France went around the United States government to negotiate with private citizens?” (Quote from an excellent Sierra Magazine piece on the hearings and the history behind them.)

Finally, as multiple tribal representatives pointed out at the Jan. 30 hearing, Curtis did not consult with any of the five tribes about the management council he designed to (allegedly) empower Natives with a vested interest in the Bears Ears region.  This led Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye to state that the monument was tribal "in name only."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on December 15, 2019 at 12:50

We are way off topic, but let's go.  So, here's where we are today:  Many of us can't agree on what ARE the facts, not what are the facts as I believe them to be.  Or, you can substitute "believe" with the word "want".  I read Drudge Report and watch the news programs on Fox News (CNN too), but I also have an on-line subscription to the Washington Post and I read Politico and about 5 other newspapers online daily.  I have to rely on my own judgment as to what to believe or not believe.  I chide my friends and relatives on both sides of the divide for posting obviously fake news on facebook.  All of that crap simply isn't helpful in any way.

As a starter for where this discussion is now, let's talk about Bears Ears, which President Obama designated as a national monument.  Having lived in the West for a number of years, I've visited many National Monuments.  Chaco Canyon in NW New Mexico is one of my favorites.  The federal law that created the authority for a President to designate a National Monument states that the area designated should be as small and compact as feasible to protect the monument.  Bears Ears was larger than many states.  As first designated by President Obama, it covered more than 2000 square miles.  It was reduced by President Trump to a little over 300 square miles, or, about half the size of DeSoto Parish, if you will.  Enough area to include the two buttes the original designation was intended to protect.

Now that the size has been conformed to the original intent of the federal statute, there's still squabbling over management.  That's the current American status.

Back to the original article posted for this thread, my response was that the article had chosen an irrelevant measure to focus on.  As the world economy grows, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.  If the thrust of the article had been "world use of fossil fuels continues to grow" then that would have been a good discussion that would perhaps inform public policy.  We should think about whether we want the world economy to grow and improve the lives of people, or do we want to only allow the economy to grow if it can be done without increasing greenhouse gases, and not improve the lives of as many people.  That's a fair debate to have.  But the fact that NG use has increased in the US, while true, doesn't paint a full picture.  Again, I assert that every BTU of coal eliminated and replaced with NG is a good thing for the climate, whether here in the US or anywhere else in the world.  NG isn't the salvation of climate change, but eliminating the use of coal-fired power plants is a pretty good start, and NG is certainly cleaner than coal.  Sorry for the two-bit word, but it is a fact that my last statement is "axiomatic" (self evident, indisputable).    

My other point was that unless and until China and India get on board and realistically work towards reducing their greenhouse gases,  then we will all get to find out if the climate computer models are accurate or not sooner than we expected, regardless of what the US and EU do.  And, that point is far from being "inconsequential."

Attachments:

• Non-Sequitor - Facts_0001.pdf, 38 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2019 at 13:24

Lesson one:  don't mess with the Indians.  It's not about the size in acres, for me, it's about the politics and the fact that deliberations among stake holders no longer matters if the administration has an agenda and isn't interested in discourse. 

Lesson two:  no alternative news sources can mitigate watching Drudge and Fox (entertainment).  Of course most can't tell where Fox Entertainment ends and Fox News begins.  Shepherd Smith was okay but gone.  Chris Wallace is all that's left in the roll of traditional news reporting and boy is he lonely over there.

The switch from coal to natural gas is a good turn of events for domestic CO2 emissions however growing energy consumption still pumps more GHG into the atmosphere.  Which takes the shine off the switch and continues to aggravate the problem.  Now here is the real concern.  As we emit more GHG it drives popular opinion against all hydrocarbon energy sources.  Thus the transition in popular opinion from natural gas as the "blue bridge to a green energy future" to natural gas is now the focus of the GHG emission problem.  From viewed positively to viewed as the new focus of the problem.  Public opinion drives government regulation and will result eventually in more stringent regulations and a reduction of industry incentives.  Anyone that would care to argue the validity of that point may do so but the market/private investment is already moving away from hydrocarbons and to renewable energy opportunities.  Government regulation can not save the coal industry or any other industry for that matter that is not supported by investment and consumer demand.  Tesla now sells more units in the domestic luxury auto market than Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Infinite or BMW.  As prices come down, Tesla will likely outsell GM and Ford in certain auto segments.

It is a tall order to change our economy from reliance on hydrocarbon energy sources and so it is for other advanced economies.  Especially those that have much larger populations and are less advanced on the economic development arc.  The fact that China and India will struggle with the transition and make less than desirable progress in the foreseeable future threatens the health of every person on the globe to some extent.  Is that reason for the US to take emissions less seriously or do less than we can to mitigate GHG emissions?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on December 15, 2019 at 14:52

I'm with Skip. Don't mess with the Indians. Of course, having read Skip's posts for many years, I truly respect his thoughts and effort to help so many GHS members. In regards to the other stuff, I've learned that it does no good to waste time on the Net arguing over most anything.

Forget about it. A waste of time. Most opinions are set in stone.

Me, it's all about truth and honesty. In other words, character. I'm country. Both sides of my family go way back to Louisiana farming families. I know the history.

Bottom line. IMHO, Skip is solid, of good character, and is darn honest. Thousands and thousands of GHS folks are truly in his debt. He's a one of a kind. A great guy. 

• ▶ Reply