Skip to main content
February 1, 2010 – It’s been a cold January this time around. Cincinnati never gets all that much snow, and that’s holding true this year, too. Cincy is, however, a terribly gloomy place during the winter – I really don’t think Seattle has got us beat by much – and it’s easy to see there are lots of us who are badly in need of increased sunshine!
When yours truly goes out for a walk in 25-degree weather just to inhale a little fresh air and get an occasional peak at the sun, it’s bad.

So what’s the topic du jour? I was thinking we’d take a close look at natural gas, with
the help of the Worldwatch Institute and the American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF). On December 12, Worldwatch, the ACSF, and the UN Foundation sponsored a forum at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Entitled “Natural Gas, Renewables and Efficiency: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy,” the audience attending the forum listened to a distinguished panel of speakers. Aubrey McClendon, Board Chairman of Chesapeake Energy Corporation and the ACSF; Christopher Flavin, President of the Worldwatch Institute; Ian Smale of British Petroleum, U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, who is President of the UN Foundation; and Vello Kuuskraa, President of Advanced Resources International.

Noteworthy comments made by panel members included this remark by Sen. Wirth: “Now that economically accessible reserves in the U.S. have grown by more than 60 percent, it is important to rethink the role of natural gas in climate and energy policy. The dramatic new discoveries and reserves are almost a gift, giving us a chance to develop a faster and smoother transition toward a low-carbon economy.”

At this point, I find myself squirming in my chair. Why do I feel a sense of dis-ease about panel members and their enthusiasm for natural gas? Could it be because some of their futures depend upon its new-found marketability? When senators start speaking of our natural resources as “gifts,” why do my antennae start wiggling frantically? To not be skeptical would seem practically irresponsible!

Yet the article (Copenhagen Forum Sees Natural Gas as Key to Transitioning to a Low-Carbon Economy, retrieved from www.worldwatch.org on 1/26/10) goes on to state that increased availability of natural gas may afford us the opportunity to “accelerate the decarbonization of energy supplies by substituting natural gas for coal and, to a lesser extent, oil.” I have long regarded the Worldwatch Institute as a trustworthy source of information, and accept that they believe transitioning to natural gas is largely an advantageous change, particularly in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It should come as no surprise, however, that making the switch will not be easy. Among the obstacles to be overcome are the establishment of a fair and functioning carbon market, passage of laws regulating and taxing the gas industry, and open access and fair pricing in electricity markets. From my own point of view, it would seem that making the gas widely available ought to happen concurrently with the passage of regulations. They’re kind of like love and marriage – you can’t have one without the other, although perhaps it would be more precise to say you shouldn’t have one without the other. Last year’s so-called “economic meltdown” taught us the absolute necessity of having regulations in place, and of attending closely both to the spirit, and the letter, of the law.

More information about natural gas can be found at www.cleanskies.org/resources.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wildfires

March 20, 2017 - Happy Spring, everybody. Today's post will be brief: the ten-year average for number of wildfires during January through mid-March is 8,687 fires that burned 216,894 acres per year in the United States. This year there have been 10,829 fires during that period, burning 2,062,012 acres. You read that right.

Monsanto and the EPA

April 2, 2017 - The following was sent to me by Credo by email today. Please read and take action: Stunning new documents unsealed by a federal judge suggest that Monsanto worked directly with  federal regulators to hide the health risks of and manipulate the science behind its best-selling herbicide, RoundUp. The documents reveal that Monsanto pressured Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to not publicly release information on the cancer risks of glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, ghost- wrote research for the EPA and worked with a senior official at the agency to quash a federal review of the chemical. These documents suggest an unprecedented level of collusion between the EPA and Monsanto  to cover up evidence that RoundUp is a likely carcinogen. The Office of Inspector General of the  EPA, an independent office tasked with investigating fraud and abuse in the agency, must immediately launch an investigation to hold Monsanto and all EPA employees involved accounta…