We need to im(wait...no...ex)-port natural gas to save the U.S. economy
December 7, 2012 9:49 PM   Subscribe

A new DOE-funded study has concluded liquified natural gas exports will help the US economy. (PDF) In this report, the word "environment" occurs four times -- none of them with respect to impact on, or cost to the environment of either extraction or transportation.

The two categories of drawbacks included in their analysis were "Increased natural gas prices and Potential for, and impact of, loss of jobs in energy intensive industries."

Until recently, the LNG terminal proposals were for imports, not exports. The reason for the turnabout is, yes, fracking. From the report: "U.S. shale gas production has increased significantly due to novel hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques that have reduced production costs."

The Sierra Club has responded condemning the report's disregard for the impact of fracking. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden issued a statement that concludes that the price increase is reason enough not to pursue exports. Arkansas Senator Lisa Murkowski and Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe both applauded the report's findings.

The FERC has a list of LNG export terminal proposals around the US.

The DOE solicits feedback to lngstudy@hq.doe.gov.
posted by dylanjames (60 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
Meanwhile in Canada...
posted by blue_beetle at 9:59 PM on December 7, 2012


On a a related note, Southern Cross University recently tested methane levels around various Australian CSG fields (we have about half a dozen LNG trains under construction or planned in Queensland for liquefaction of coal seam gas for export) and found alarmingly high levels of atmospheric methane that they believe is escaping from the subsurface coal seams.

They think that fraccing the coal seams (which is done in about 40% of wells, many flow naturally at commercial rates) may be changing the soil composition and gas may be escaping well above what is normal.

The CSG lobby rejects the findings, as does the minister, because export dollars and billions of investment are at risk.

What I find somewhat astounding is that there were no baseline studies on atmospheric methane in these areas, before or during exploration drilling. Many wells will leak at some point in their lives, properly maintained it should be caught pretty quickly and dealt with, but they are now saying instead of the fugitive emissions factor of 0.12% that industry uses based in a 1996 American Petroleum Institute assessment), it could be anywhere up to about 8%.

All coal fields are different, and I am somewhat shocked no one has looked into this before.
Data from 1996 American CSG fields could pretty much be useless for the Australian experience, or the modern shale gas drilling that's ongoing in the US.

Technology has changed a hell of a lot in the past FIVE years. Most wells are now dual (or triple) lateral, and fracced over 20 stages, so they produce at amazing rates.

Incidentally, methane is 23 times more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2 when vented.

Take that, EARTH!

(Oh, and everyone expects the US will export gas. Canada is about to, and Sabine Pass has recently been approved, but it's a cut-throat market out there.)
posted by Mezentian at 10:03 PM on December 7, 2012 [10 favorites]


At this point, it's all hand wringing. Does anyone think this method of extraction is not going to be exploited?
posted by 2N2222 at 10:16 PM on December 7, 2012


Of course it's going to be exploited.
There is just too much oil and gas in the shale formations not to.

We just have to hope that the costs remain suitably high to help encourage renewable fuels where possible, and low enough that natural gas substitution of coal (and especially low-rank coals) for things like baseload power is viable.

And that the people doing the fraccing are skilled professionals who know what they are doing, can do it safely, and are prepared to let certain areas lie if they can't gain access, or if the water table is threatened, or whatever.

So, as long as we're not following the business as usual case we'll be fine.
posted by Mezentian at 10:31 PM on December 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


It's just another nail in a coffin that was already mostly made of nails at this point.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:35 PM on December 7, 2012 [7 favorites]


Given the latest reports, we are so far past the tipping point that we might as well keep burning carbon. There is no going back. Hot earth climate is here.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:41 PM on December 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


Oh, come on, the UN is all over this planetary emergency. I'm sure they whipped up some good, sensible and achievable policy last week.
posted by Mezentian at 10:42 PM on December 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile in Canada...

That is completely astonishing. In what world is that a reasonable thing for the Premiere of Alberta to say. That is like George Bush joking about looking for WMD at the correspondents dinner.....
posted by Chuckles at 10:47 PM on December 7, 2012


Lisa Murkowski is Senator from Alaska (AK) not Arkansas (AR).

Fracking is still bad.
posted by now i'm piste at 10:57 PM on December 7, 2012


It's over, guys. We need to start planning for higher temperatures and considering geoengineering solutions. I may buy some land in Maine and start planting wine grapes.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:00 PM on December 7, 2012


Fracking is still bad.

Not inherently, no. There is no evidence to support that.
It might be bad.
It might be bad if done poorly.
It might be bad in depending on the geological formations being targeted, but it's not blanket bad -- at least as far as I have seen in the literature.

Fraccing isn't a monolithic thing.
posted by Mezentian at 11:05 PM on December 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


Take that, EARTH!
<pedantic>
The earth will be just fine. It's the humans that need to worry.
</pedantic>

The earth was just fine when there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere. It was also just fine with microbial oxygen farts poisoned the vast majority of those same microbes, only allowing those who could actually process oxygen to survive. And various other disasters that resulted in large scale extinctions.

We may (or may not) kill off all the humans. The earth will still be here, and some kind of life will still be here. It's the humans that need to worry. Not the earth.
posted by b1tr0t at 11:34 PM on December 7, 2012 [2 favorites]


Solid point there.
posted by Mezentian at 11:38 PM on December 7, 2012


We may (or may not) kill off all the humans. The earth will still be here, and some kind of life will still be here. It's the humans that need to worry. Not the earth.

Somebody busts out this line of nonsense in every goddamned environmentalism thread and it was only mildly funny the first time but goddamned if I can figure out why anybody thinks it's funny, original, or contributory in any way now.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:39 PM on December 7, 2012 [13 favorites]


Comforting yourself with the continued existence of the Earth after humanity and most of the biota is gone, is like comforting yourself from your terminal cancer by considering that hey, you'll leave a corpse.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:07 AM on December 8, 2012 [7 favorites]


It does comfort me.

But what also comforts me is that in 50 years when I am dead, the impact of climate change will really be taking hold, and I will have enjoyed a life high of the hog, leaving nothing for future generations but misery, pain and debt.

And a well-tended lawn.
posted by Mezentian at 12:14 AM on December 8, 2012


I think we can all just assume that when we talk about Earth in this context we really mean "Earth as we know it."
posted by brundlefly at 12:37 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


At a complete tangent to the general thread, I do wish the US would provide leadership on free trade even when it [looks like it] is against its own interests. We condemn Russia for restricting or playing politics with gas exports, and attack China over rare earth minerals: why doesn't this same standard apply to the US? Does the leader of the free world believe in a free global market or doesn't it? See also agriculture, steel...
posted by alasdair at 1:27 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Pope Guilty: Somebody busts out this "destroying the Earth" line of nonsense in every goddamned environmentalism thread and it was only mildly inaccurate the first time but (etc., etc.) As long as people are being wrong on the internet, other people are going to correct them.


FWIW, for me, pointing out that only humanity or only civilization are at risk makes it seem more immediate and real.
posted by hattifattener at 1:32 AM on December 8, 2012 [4 favorites]


Does the leader of the free world believe in a free global market or doesn't it?

Capitalism likes a free market mechanism until it threatens profits, and then the unregulated market is a bad thing.

What that has to do with energy exports puzzles me.

Energy security is, and should be, an issue for the domestic govenment to decide, otherwise you'll end up with a system where gas is preferentially send into the world market as much higher priced, oil-linked gas prices are better for the bottom line, and that will then cause gas prices in the US to rise to meet the global level and the US domestic economy will suffer thanks to higher natural gas and power prices.

And I am sure that crazy scenario will never come to pass. Never. ever.
posted by Mezentian at 1:35 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


So I'm confused, why are we upset that a report on the Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States happens to focus on the Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States? Are we upset that the DOE is not also the EPA?
posted by Blasdelb at 2:53 AM on December 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


And a well-tended lawn.

All you have to do is get some good grass and roll it every day for 600 years.
posted by poe at 2:59 AM on December 8, 2012


Are we upset that the DOE is not also the EPA?

At this point, the EPA should be dictating energy policy. Actually, we passed that point some time ago. Wouldn't work anyway, because the oil industry would just spend the millions it now spends keeping the DOE captured on capturing the EPA.

Thanks, Capitalism!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:08 AM on December 8, 2012 [4 favorites]


Given the latest reports, we are so far past the tipping point that we might as well keep burning carbon.

There is no point at which this is true. Never, never, not ever. No matter how bad things are, we can make them worse, much worse, by continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the air. There's no upper bound to how much damage can be done.

Well, okay, we could get to the point that lead melts during the daytime at the poles; once we're there, we probably can't effectively make it any worse. But there's a long way between 6C and 600C.
posted by Malor at 3:44 AM on December 8, 2012 [13 favorites]


why doesn't this same standard apply to the US?

Double standards are a 'core value' to Humanity.

Even here on The Blue.

busts out this line of nonsense in every goddamned environmentalism

Overhead and profit-taking in the carbon offsets system eats up about 70 percent of what is spent on carbon offsets, according to a report from UK-based Carbon Retirement report.

we can make them worse, much worse, by continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the air.

30 percent – Investment banks often buy up carbon offsets before a project is up and running, and they take an average 30 percent of the total in profits and operations.

Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area.

Why should "Carbon solutions" fatten the wallets of the Vulture Capitalists?

At what point does Humanity address "Carbon Issues" and keep the vampire squids from making a profit?
(I have faith in you Malor - if any poster on The Blue can noodle out a 1st pass answer - you can)
posted by rough ashlar at 4:01 AM on December 8, 2012


lets export energy

Or hey, lets consider how this "energy" is a 1 time gift and keep it for home heating and using it for food cooking?

As per a Blue favourite - Tim Cook: The cheaper Natural Gas is why Apple is moving factories back into the US.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:06 AM on December 8, 2012


alas the edit window closed.

Al Gore Invests $6M To Make BILLIONS In Cap And Trade

How much of "Carbon bad!!" is others attempting to "make a profit"?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:11 AM on December 8, 2012


Are we upset

The "we" here is dependant on if D,R or 'Tea party' "member" says 'it'.

Alas the DOE has no "party" associated with it, so The Blue can not figure out if The Blue is to be upset or happy.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:22 AM on December 8, 2012


Oil to the World. (Offer not valid in Quebec.)
posted by sfenders at 6:08 AM on December 8, 2012


Al Gore Invests $6M To Make BILLIONS In Cap And Trade

The stupid in that site is at pretty toxic levels. And the actual story it links to makes the headline transparently false (i.e., Al Gore has invested millions in a company that is entering a market where there are, potentially, billions of dollars to be made--by all the players in that market). So by the same logic, if you invested ten thousand bucks in Apple you are investing thousands to make billions!
posted by yoink at 6:56 AM on December 8, 2012 [6 favorites]


How much of "Carbon bad!!" is others attempting to "make a profit"?

Is this the "climate scientists are just trying to keep their jobs by refusing to hear the TRUTH, and that's why all the peer-reviewed studies agree" thing again? Because I've already had my RDA of stupid from reading Infinite Crisis.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:06 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Because I've already had my RDA of stupid from reading Infinite Crisis.

Say, friend, what can I do to stop you from Final Crisis?
Because, I have a blindfold and handcuffs handy.

And, my god people, we are PUTTING SHIT WE KNOW TO BE TOXIC INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. Even if we reject climate change, could we not just work on not polluting?
Just as an end in an of itself?
posted by Mezentian at 7:14 AM on December 8, 2012


No matter how bad things are, we can make them worse, much worse, by continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the air.

I don't believe so. Methane hydrates are melting. We are now locked into a run-away heating cycle.

It's like balancing a yard stick on one's fingertips. We failed to adjust, failed to keep it in balance. We allowed it to tip into a falling state and, whoops, the hydrates just smacked it away. It doesn't matter how we move our hand now, the yardstick is gone.

Burn 'em if you got 'em, boys: there ain't no tomorrow.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:20 AM on December 8, 2012


@five fresh fish

so are you like a climate scientist or what
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


Methane hydrates are melting.

Citation?
I found this website which has too many ani-gif to take serious, and this which suggests we need to find out.

If they are, and I don't discount the possibility, we are fucked.
posted by Mezentian at 7:32 AM on December 8, 2012


5FF: It doesn't matter how we move our hand now, the yardstick is gone.

You're not joking, are you? Wow.

In the whole "was climate change caused by humans" argument, I have always held the view that causality is irrelevant (or at least second order) to the question of "can we do anything to reverse the trend?" Thinking that it would be obvious that human ingenuity would be able to come up with something. I guess it's not so obvious!
posted by dylanjames at 7:32 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Thinking that it would be obvious that human ingenuity would be able to come up with something.

If that works, I guess we just need to find some locations where dumping iron ore isn't environmentally insane, big it up and ship it out ... in a way someone other than the iron ore miners can make some money.

I wonder how many million tonnes will we need? And how will we manage the downside of blooms of algae?
posted by Mezentian at 7:36 AM on December 8, 2012


Mezentian: I wasn't suggesting that particular solution, just something like it... you know, out-of-the-box ideas that leverage self-replicating / self-limiting systems.
posted by dylanjames at 7:44 AM on December 8, 2012


Or hey, lets consider how this "energy" is a 1 time gift and keep it for home heating and using it for food cooking?

You do realize the United States has been the prime mover in making it illegal for the participants of just about every international trade agreement to withhold energy exports? For about 70 years you have been on the receiving end of the benefits of this system.
posted by srboisvert at 8:07 AM on December 8, 2012


Methane plumes on the Arctic shelf. Off the East Coast. Off Alaska. And so on. The permafrost is also melting and releasing carbon.

The climate has changed faster and more severely than the generally-accepted predictions. Those studies typically don't account for hundreds of gigatons of previously-frozen Arctic methane suddenly being released by melting.

Conclusion: we are hooped.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:17 AM on December 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


And no, I'm not joking. You have been lied to for decades. The realistic predictions are never promoted: at best, the governments and media have presented the best-case, rose-tinted sunglasses predictions. In actual fact, its the most dire predictions that are proving most correct.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


I used to wonder about those Easter Islanders. How could they have been so short-sighted!

They had their reasons. They had gods to appease.

And so do we.
posted by notyou at 8:47 AM on December 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


"Let's fuck this up worse" does not seem to follow from "this problem might be real bad" to me
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 9:32 AM on December 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


"Gosh, I have a nasty cough! It's probably cancer - so I should keep smoking as fast as ever."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:08 AM on December 8, 2012


I think a better analogy would be
"I'm going to bleed out in about 5 minutes. Might as well have that cigarette..."
posted by the Real Dan at 11:29 AM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


It's a cancer that went ignored to the point where death is guaranteed to occur shortly. Grandpa might as well continue smoking, because there's fuck-all point in not.

I expect that under current healthcare tech, I've got another forty years on this planet. Within my lifetime, global climate disaster will strike. Crop failure on an unprecedented scale is a sure bet. Potable water is going to be scarce in developed countries. Coastal cities and their ports are going to be lashed by epic storms. There will be flooding that displaces tens, even hundreds of millions, of city dwellers. There will be no moderate climates. It will be a world of hot chaos by the time I'm old.

The global climate is not a Weeble. This is not a climate wobble. This is a spinning plate atop a pole, ignored too long and having fallen off.

We were an ant on the plate and just as it was slowing down, we ran out to the edge. We tipped the balance, causing the inevitable to happen much sooner than it otherwise would have. Running back to the center doesn't affect the smash at the end. We're in freefall now, we can't rebalance the plate.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:59 AM on December 8, 2012


we're all doomed, Doomed!, DOOOMED!
posted by Shit Parade at 12:07 PM on December 8, 2012


Until we can mine CO2 from the atmosphere, anyway.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:18 PM on December 8, 2012


It's a cancer that went ignored to the point where death is guaranteed to occur shortly. Grandpa might as well continue smoking, because there's fuck-all point in not.

It's a kick-ass metaphor man. Like, smoking represents driving our SUVs to the mall to buy shit we don't need, and grandpa's earlier cancer death represents hundreds of millions of human lives and the extinction of an additional double-digit percentage of all species on earth.
posted by crayz at 3:28 PM on December 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Citation?

One of the big problems in climate science is getting a straight answer. It's so political that if you nail down one fact that's contrary, suddenly you're on the "other" side.
Polar bears for example. Going extinct? Not according to the Inuit. They can and do mate with brown bears (grolars ... aka "don't run from them you'll just die tired"). And they can hunt on land just fine. (Ask me why I carry a sidearm the size of a Pumhart von Steyr)
Last time I was at Tagish Lake I was talking to a scientist (in a different field) and he wouldn't believe it. Nope. Polar bears are going extinct because global warming. I was just saying I've been seeing more polar bears because I hate science.

Well but hell, yeah global warming - more mosquitoes, more melt, new animals eating new vegetation. It's obvious it's getting warmer in the Yukon.
But polar bears are not a static feature, they adapt and change with the environment. So they come south and hump brown bears and start eating other things.
The problem (IMHO) is the association of the symbol with the concept behind facts. It becomes dogma. Which is what all humans do. Folks on the other side figure since there are more polar bears, there is no global warming.

The problem is almost exactly the same as cigarette smoking in people's personal space on the sidewalk. They get all bent out of shape about it. But exhaust from the thousands of cars driving by - meh.

Habituation kills.

It wouldn't irritate me so much if people didn't also tolerate direct and obvious destruction.

Tagish lake is a beautiful place. You can hunt and fish there. Enjoy peace and natural beauty. So we have to blow the hell out of it to mine for gold.

Which is kind of funny, because that means the polar bear will go extinct. Because they will go where the food is. Which is where we are. And so we will kill them.
Same way, if all this is a given, we will kill ourselves.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:06 PM on December 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


Cross breeding between polar bears and grizzlies is very rare, but if it did occur exclusively, it would amount to extinction of the polar bear species.

Anecdotal data from the Inuit is not science. Bears may be found in closer proximity to villages scavenging for food because they are starving instead of out on the ice where they belong. Scientific census studies should various results, but more areas show declines than show increases.

It is not matter of bears moving south and hunting on land. They are adapted to hunting on ice where they capture seals near the seals air holes. They do not have the claws and shoulder strength of grizzlies for digging on land, nor the behavioral abilities. So no, polar bears can't just move onto land because they are neither physically nor behaviorally adapted to survive there. They hang around the shore, waiting for ice to appear or if not, they start swimming until they find ice or die.
posted by JackFlash at 5:52 PM on December 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's doom and gloom, yes. I'm afraid so. The weather has become more extreme more frequently. We aren't prepared for the problems that will cause.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:34 PM on December 8, 2012


Scientific census studies should various results,

Thanks for proving my point: What was that again about hats?

Anecdotal data from the Inuit is not science

I know. I hate science. I believe Jesus made the polar bears. I also must have been hallucinating when I saw a polar bear take out a reindeer.
Years of hunting and keen observation driven by the desire to not get eaten must have made me believe in this "opportunistic predator" nonsense that is only supported by decades of scientific study (which I hate).

Also I hallucinated the journal Arctic (gotta read something up there) which said last December essentially the same thing, polar bears' habitat is shifting from ice to land and open water. And a study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that said it is likely polar bears would interbreed more.

Because all the ice is melting.

I'm not sure a cursory search on Google is more scientific than actually being in the arctic environment and directly observing polar bears, but I would suspect that they're smarter than that. I've hunted other bear as well and they're one of the most resilient adaptable species on Earth. Polar bears have survived warming periods in the past.

All things considered they would benefit from increased genetic diversity because they have had to keep bouncing back over the past 500,000 years from smaller and smaller populations spread out further and further from warming trends.

But they'll likely go extinct because they are opportunistic predators, intelligent enough to go eat human garbage before they simply swim until they die.

So no, polar bears can't just move onto land because they are neither physically nor behaviorally adapted to survive there

I should probably be less harsh. But I dislike being told differently that what I've directly observed with my own eyes. I've been there. I know bear. I hunt them. I've been in the arctic. Polar bear kill reindeer. They come into communities and eat out of the trash. They're extremely aggressive and larger than grizzlies.

In what world other than the plethora of "information" about polar bears by people who have not seen them outside of zoos think that they will all sit on ice floes and starve to death before coming in and sweeping the smaller brown bears aside and mating with them?

It's like no one has ever heard of an invasive species.
They will come in and dominantly colonize the brown bear habitat. Once there they will interbreed and overpopulate.
Because a landscape that can support some smaller brown bears can't tolerate a larger number of huge hybrid bears they will begin to encroach (more, since they are already) on human terrain.

Then we will eradicate them as the demand to respond to their changing environment crushes them against us. Because as heartbreaking as it is to see some baby bear stuck on an iceburg, no one is going to tolerate mutilated children - anecdotal data or not.

I don't know first hand about what's happening globally or the causes but I can say I know for a fact there's less ice and it's warmer where I've been and that plant and animal species going through there are changing very swiftly. That jibes with what most of the climate science says.

But again, tough to get a straight answer. You have to work through a lot of noise to gleen it down. Everyone has an agenda.
Something this important, we shouldn't have to work so hard to understand plainly.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:40 AM on December 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


Why would you hunt bears? Unless you really luck out, the meat tastes rank and is filled with parasites. So… why?
posted by five fresh fish at 12:12 PM on December 10, 2012


How have you cooked what you been harvesting?
If they're sick or they've been on a fish only diet they can taste rank, but for the most part it's delicious.
That aside, mostly it's land management. You want somewhat less bears around than the general area can hold.
The bears are healthier (and taste better), they don't decimate the young elk or caribou or deer population.
Most importantly, they don't lose their fear of humans.

Though, that's the big problem with climate change, a starving bear is going to encroach on other habitats and be less afraid of humans than starving to death.
But I only differ in opinion about the means by which polar bears will become extinct. As far as I can tell they'll adapt and change and become a different bear - eventually. With the caveat that any bear species survive at all.

But again, the main point being that's all a sidetrack of the main issue if the circumstances are as dire as some sources are saying they are. Polar bear survival isn't the point (other than as a 'canary in the mine'), human survival is.
If we might lose polar ice by 2020, and as far as I can tell, yeah, that's conceivable now just looking at it. It wasn't 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago, the sun felt different, the wind was different.

I hear armadillos are endangered as well. Same argument. Some populations have been increasing. But whatever the case, all of them are headed north.
Many people fixates on the "extinct" argument as proof one way or the other while ignoring the mass habitat change.
Perhaps hybridized bear will be hunting mutant armadillo in the future in the thin habitable band on the earth. We'll still probably try to pave the strip to drive cars on it.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:14 PM on December 10, 2012


[Come on folks, try harder. Next person to say "fuck you" to another user gets the night off.]
posted by jessamyn at 4:55 PM on December 10, 2012


Well, we could trade bon mots all day... but if anyone is interested in the topic du jour, here's a link to a piece done on the ABC about the topic of fugitive emissions, and the lack of scientific data which I mentioned upthread.

There's audio which may or may not be available internationally, and the transcript will be available later today. Of interest to Americans is a noted scientist who has studied gas wells and whose work was relied on by APPEA to defend CSG extraction, who went questions basically says "We really just don't know, because we don't have the data".

Of most concern is that if gas substitution isn't the silver bullet we need, we're pretty screwed.

Incidentally, yesterday Sempra Energy started the paperwork to add export capability to its existing Cameron LNG terminal in Louisiana. They're targeting a 2017 start up, which would appear to be viable.
posted by Mezentian at 5:03 PM on December 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


I have a friend who is a climate change denier, of course his opinion is more nuanced than that and i respect him -- he his an intelligent even brilliant mind -- but after consideration (I realized that in part, I ought to be an expert in the climate change evidence if I truly belief in it's significance), but overall, when he gave me some suggestions on how to be a more effective spokes person I realized that it didn't really matter all that much, that yeah, in an ideal world I would be an expert, but climate change policy (the way governments react to climate change) are going to happen, they are all already happening, and it really just a question of how and how much.

Democracy is strange in that way, it really doesn't matter what the elite want if no one is around to give it to them.

We will see more riots, food price being the driving cause, and this will affect almost uniquely the poorest people on the planet, the people who earn 'a dollar or two a day', and from our Western perspective it is more question, an equation, of risk management, Syria is a good case example -- how much (how little) can we interfere and still maintain our core objectives, i.e. no WMD proliferation, a future for Israel, stable or steady energy pricing, and a peaceful sea bearing exchange of goods.

I try to be optimistic, but I foresee hundreds of millions of people dying in the next 30 years.
posted by Shit Parade at 7:08 PM on December 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


If you believe the Club Of Rome would agree that people are going to die in their millions anyway (based on their 40-year-update), and climate change is just making it worse.
posted by Mezentian at 9:02 PM on December 10, 2012


Not sure what happened that got edited out above. But if it's on me, I don't mean to get in anyone's face. I think everyone is, or should be, on the same page that it can't keep going the way it is now with any expectation of a good outcome.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:27 AM on December 11, 2012


« Older Breaking The Taboo, an ambitious and star-studded ...  |  Reinhold Weege, creator of Nig... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments