What happens when the media becomes vested in a certain perspective in an issue? Over the last few years, just as natural gas became plentiful because of massive discoveries of shale gas, the narrative from some of the most radical environmentalists, and journalists who echo the hard-left line, has shifted from “natural gas is a great bridge to alternative energy sources” to “natural gas is dirtier than coal.”
So earlier this year when researchers Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea at Cornell University released a letter based on their unpublished research—not peer reviewed—suggesting that shale gas might be worse for global warming than coal, it was hyped by the New York Times and widely picked up. Many analysts, from experts from energy firms and even unlikely places such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Natural Resources Defense Council poked holes in the study, but their comments got little play.
This deafening silence was repeated again earlier this month when scientists at Carnegie Mellon University, in a study partly funded by the Sierra Club, concluded just the opposite, in concert with the mainstream scientific view: shale gas, in this case derived from the huge Marcellus Formation which lies under New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, has significantly less impact on global warming than coal.
“Marcellus shale gas emits 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than any US coal-fired plant,” said study co-author Chris Hendrickson. John Hanger, the former head of Pennsylvania’s environmental agency during the prior Democratic administration, wrote on his blog that the study “debunks and decimates professor Howarth’s hit piece study that the NYT gas reporter and other media gave so much attention.”
Hanger is referring to the much-maligned series of reports attacking natural gas fracking (the process used to extract gas from shale) by embattled New York Times reporter, Ian Urbina, whose work has been rebuked on two separate occasions by the Times’ public editor, Arthur Brisbane.
But Urbina is at it again. In an article published earlier this month, he dredged up a 27-year old incident, claiming that hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminated a well in West Virginia. That would seem to conflict with comments from the industry, and even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who said in May, “I am not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”
Even if Urbina is correct, that’s one known incident out of more than one million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry. But as Forbes’s contributor and University of Houston professor Michael Economides wrote yesterday, the cause of that one instance remains unclear, which is why organizations that track fracking, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, still maintain there have been no contamination incidents.
Even worse, Economides writes, Urbina falsely accuses industry representatives of trying to prevent a 1987 EPA report that cited this West Virginia case from circulating, when in fact the case was sealed, as is common in legal settlements. All in all, he says, more questionable reporting, particularly by the Times, and more misleading fodder for anti-fracking environmental activists and policy-makers.
Jon Entine is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University and STATS, and is a visiting fellow at AEI.
Leftists always try to swathe themselves in the the Bath of Sweet Reason. Even when they are usually being highly unreasonable.
They critique Fracking because it offers the prospect of generous supplies of Natural Gas. They will also critique Fracking because it offers the prospect of in-situ oil production as well. They will critique oil production because it is “dirty”.
They militate for ONLY embryonic stem cell research despite the fact that the embryonic stem cell research is all based on phony results by a Korean MD who was faking his Research for fame and fortune. No responsible philanthropy will waste money on this phony, non-productive, experimentation, so they force government to fund it as it offers a fig-leaf to their big campaign financier the Baby killing, abortion industry.
if they managed to produce replacement organs from embryonic stem cell which they have not, the patients own body defenses will reject it. OTOH, Self-Stem cell research is the only stem cell research that is producing results, and offers the prospect of replacement organs not rejected by the patient’s immune system.
Leftists continue to maintain their political & economic theories wo=k when it has been tried at least 96 times over the past 168 years, and has yet to produce a success; but has produced lots of misery, concentration camps, and mass murder. Conducting an experiment 96 times in a in a row and always failing, without drawing a conclusion is a subversion of the scientific method to assume the 97th attempt will succeed.
Leftists believed in Trophim Lysenko because his scientific ideas were politically correct, about the perfectibility of creatures through exhortation and propaganda. Even if they were pure nonsense and set back Russian genetics for two generations.
The Obamunists were so anxious to monkey-wrench nuclear power that the Yucca Repository was shut down, just when it was on the verge of being finished.
The USA has to hitch-hike into Space because, amid all the spending, no money could be found to design a new generation of Space Shuttle.
Liberals are just plain nincompoops and wholly unscientific!
I believe those on both sides of the fracking argument should show a lot more humility than they do at present, and proceed as if they do not know everything, which they most likely do not. We need the gas; it is cheaper, cleaner and less disruptive to the environment than coal. But we do not need anything similar to the BP disaster.
…especially as the firm that actually caused the “BP” disaster (Halliburton) is also heavily involved in fracking.
My goodness! That’s the most convincing comment I’ve ever read.
Sorry, I left out the reference. My previous comment was a reply to Natural_Philosopher at
August 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Exxon Mobil, now the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, is in American Enterprise Institutes “Corporate Leadership Circle,” having donated over $200,000 last year.
http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/gcr_contributions_pubpolicy-2010.pdf
—
So this article was published by AEI, who have received more than $200,000 from Exxon Mobil, obviously having a massive interest in making sure the public don’t question any of the many cogent arguments against hydraulic fracturing.
I think you might want to look a bit closer to home when you talk about “questionable reporting” about shale gas.
Why bother, with shale gas, keep the coal plants in place with a ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS biosource plant that captures all CO2 and does not emit any toxic gases, but captures them, reforms them into a syngas and there it is thermal chemically processed to methanol (not methane). Pure methanol with a high CETANE rating of 60+. A small system will produce millions of gallons of methanol in a year. Making this an extremely profitable venture. Also produces lots of Oxygen and more electricity to be funneled into the grid. Please visit our website for press releases and reviews: http://www.mpbiomass.com or like us on
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mpbiomass
Useful info. Lucky me I found your website accidentally, and I am surprised why this twist of fate didn’t happened earlier! I bookmarked it.