25 Mar 2010

A Controversial Drilling Practice Hits Roadblock in New York

Hydro fracturing is a profitable method of natural gas extraction that uses large quantities of water and chemicals to free gas from underground rock formations. But New York City’s concerns that the practice would threaten its water supply have slowed a juggernaut that has been sweeping across parts of the northeastern United States.
By bruce stutz

The highly productive method of natural gas extraction known as “hydro fracturing” has spread rapidly across the United States in recent years, opening up vast new reserves in Texas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and other states.

Last fall, however, the process — also known as “fracking” — ran headlong into opposition from New York City. And for now at least, stiff resistance from the city, which fears the contamination of its pristine water supply in upstate New York, seems to have slowed the momentum behind this highly touted — and highly controversial — drilling technique.

The city’s 90-page inventory of the possibly dire impacts of hydraulic fracturing has now become primary source material for a growing environmental backlash to the gas industry’s rapid assault on the huge gas-rich geological formation known as the Marcellus Shale, which underlies large portions of rural Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York State.

Acting in part on concerns raised by the New York City report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced last week that it would
Estimates that the Marcellus Shale held 350 trillion cubic feet of natural gas set off a gas leasing frenzy.
conduct a nationwide study to assess the environmental damage caused by hydro fracturing. The EPA’s larger conclusion — that the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on human health, the environment, water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, air quality, and management of radioactive materials, “warrant further scientific and regulatory analysis” — was not one the industry wanted to hear.

The EPA study may well lead to tighter controls over this loosely regulated practice, and could impede the spread of hydro fracturing. The drilling method involves forcing a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand at high pressure down a well bore and into the dense surrounding rock. There, it creates small fractures that release the previously trapped reserves. The problem is, however, that the technique also uses large quantities of water — anywhere from 3 million to 8 million gallons per well — some third to half of which emerges from the fracking process tainted by numerous contaminants and chemicals. If that water isn’t properly stored and treated, it poses a risk to surface water, wells, and underground aquifers.

The Bush administration, acting on a widely criticized EPA study that did not even test water samples, concluded that fracking was safe and in 2005 exempted gas drilling from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fracking was already widespread in Texas and Wyoming, but in recent years concerns began to grow over the environmental impact of the technique. Some western landowners claimed the drilling had polluted their wells or streams and poisoned their cattle; others claimed to have been exposed to toxic fumes seeping out of the wells. The industry, which refused to identify the chemistry of its fracking fluids for proprietary reasons, protested that these were isolated incidents, the result of poorly managed operations.

Then, in 2008, estimates that the Marcellus Shale held 350 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — enough, at the present rate of consumption, to cover the nation’s natural gas needs for 15 years — set off a gas leasing frenzy in the Marcellus region. Fracking wells began sprouting in the East.

Last year, however, New York City — concerned about the spread of hydro fracturing into the city’s 1,585-square-mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains and upper Delaware River basin — hired a team of geologists to assess fracking’s impact. Although the city’s watershed makes up only 8.5 percent of New York State’s share of the Marcellus region, the city’s study raised a large red flag as scientists argued that significant risk of water pollution was endemic to the fracking process.

“Intensive natural gas well development in the watershed,” the study said, “brings an increased level of risk to the water supply: risk of degrading
New York City had thrown a wrench into a fully stoked industrial machine.
source water quality, risk to long-term watershed health... risk of damaging critical infrastructure, and the risk of exposing watershed residents and potentially NYC residents to chronic low levels of toxic chemicals.” The city’s report said that while a single well may be environmentally benign, the risks become unacceptable “when evaluated in the context of hundreds or thousands of other wells.”

Wes Gillingham, program director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, said of the report, “One of the reasons industry could get away with these incidents is that there was a lack of science. New York City used reputable geologists and came up with the science.”

In a letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the EPA agreed with the city’s concerns and further stated that, “While protecting the New York City watershed is important... we also have concerns about water quality throughout the state. Just because fewer people rely on upstate water resources does not imply that these supplies are not worthy of protection.”

Not long after the EPA made itself heard anew, a “Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act” was introduced in Congress. Known as the FRAC Act, it would return to the EPA jurisdiction over hydraulic fracturing nationwide.

New York City, it turns out, had thrown a wrench into a fully stoked industrial machine.

Only a few years ago, before the Marcellus Shale became a household name across rural West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, this deep sedimentary formation was mostly known only to geologists. They knew it lay a mile and more below the surface of the Appalachian basin and stretched north from West Virginia to Lake Erie and east across the Appalachian mountains, the Allegheny, Susquehanna, and Delaware river valleys, and into southern New York. They knew it formed some 350 million years ago as the organic-rich deposit of an ancient river delta and that, compressed over time beneath sandstone, siltstone and shales, it had produced hydrocarbons, especially in the form of natural gas.

What they didn’t know, until recently, was how much gas it held. Twenty years ago they would have said, “not much.” And what was there, they would have said, was hardly worth tapping since the Marcellus was a tight-fisted formation, its gas either trapped between fine and densely-packed grains or adsorbed into its organic matter. The relatively low cost of natural gas and the high cost of fracking — wells can cost a few million dollars and more — also led to the Marcellus reserves remaining untapped.

But the realization two years ago of just how much gas the Marcellus Shale contained changed the economics. A “play,” as the industry calls it, in the Marcellus Shale seemed plausible. What made it practicable was a new technology developed in the early 1990s for use on drilling rigs in waters
Landowners in job-scarce rural counties imagined their leases bringing Beverly Hillbillies payoffs.
off the Gulf Coast: A motor attached to the drill bit allows it, once it reaches its final vertical depth, to be turned 90 degrees and to bore horizontally. A few of these horizontal wells, each sometimes running as much as a mile from the vertical well bore, allows fracking to extend far into the surrounding rock. While each well might now require millions — instead of thousands — of gallons of fracking fluid, this combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling made drilling into dense shales like the Marcellus eminently doable and profitable. What also made it irresistible was the fact that the price for a thousand cubic feet of natural gas had risen to more than ten dollars.

Energy companies began a rush to lease lands over the Marcellus Shale. States predicted new jobs and big revenues. Politicians concerned over the country’s dependence on foreign oil saw a large and untapped source of domestic fuel reserves. Landowners in job-scarce rural counties imagined their leases bringing big Beverly Hillbillies payoffs, such as the ones that had come to many landowners in the West. Some conservationists, including the Sierra Club, saw the possibility that such reserves would make natural gas — with fewer CO2 emissions than coal or oil —the transitional energy of choice until wind or solar power took over.

In 2008, drilling began in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. New York State, recognizing that its regulations did not address either the new technology or the expected intensity of drilling effort, imposed a temporary moratorium and quickly drafted an environmental impact statement that it hoped would soon allow drilling to commence. The industry, including Exxon-Mobil, was touting widespread gas development in the Marcellus Shale.

Then New York City’s report rang up the numbers: Each well pad will take up 5 to 7 acres including roads, pipelines, and storage facilities. There will be 6 to 10 wells per pad. The well bore will go down some 3,000 to 7,000 feet and horizontal sections will extend laterally for 2,000 to 6,000 feet. The fracking process requires, at minimum, several million gallons of water per well. Since the wells will be far from any municipal supply, getting this water to the well will require 800 to 1,200 tanker truck trips or on-site water. If this water is drawn from the city’s watershed it will mean less water in its reservoirs, especially in times of drought. (Eight million gallons of water is equivalent to 320,000 ten-minute showers.)

New York City’s study also estimated that 4 million gallons of frack fluid will contain anywhere from 80 to 330 tons of chemicals per well. Much of that water returns to the surface over several weeks of fracking. This “flowback” contains both the original — and unidentified — frack fluid chemicals, as well as dissolved hydrocarbons, benzene, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radionuclides, including uranium.

These millions of gallons of hazardous flowback waste need to be collected,
The fracking process requires, at minimum, several millions of gallons of water per well.
safely stored on site, and then trucked from the well site to an industrial wastewater treatment plant. New York State has only two treatment plants capable of handling the wastewater, and neither is anywhere near the Delaware River watershed. The nearest, according to the Delaware River Basin Commission, is outside of Philadelphia, some 200 miles away.

The city was not impressed with the industry’s claims that hydrofracking poses little risk to underground aquifers. Although the main well and its horizontal bores will be far below any freshwater aquifer, New York City’s analysis found that natural faults and fractures in the underlying geological formations “can and do serve as conduits that facilitate migration of contaminants, methane, or pressurized fluids from deep formation towards the surface.”

The city’s final word, as its Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Paul Rush, put it, was “no”: no water withdrawals and no fracking “in the New York City watershed or anywhere near its infrastructures.”

Not long after the city’s report was issued, Chesapeake Energy — a major player in the Marcellus Shale that holds leases on properties in the city’s watershed — vowed it would not drill on any of them.


CO2 Capture and Storage
Gains a Growing Foothold

Rising Seas
The drive to extract and store CO2 from coal-fired power plants is gaining momentum, with the Obama administration backing the technology and the world’s first capture and sequestration project now operating in the U.S.
New York City’s concerns are unique. As it has since 1915, city water runs untreated through more than a hundred miles of tunnels into New York City taps. Anything that might affect the quality of that water and require it to be treated could cost the city billions of dollars. And yet, the city’s description of its watershed as a “pristine, largely undisturbed landscape” applies to much of the 18,000 square miles overlaying the Marcellus Shale in New York State. Most of this southern tier region, as it is known, is sparsely populated: small towns surrounded by forests and farmland.

While the sight of oil and gas rigs scattered across the landscape may be a familiar and even comforting one to those who live in the southwestern U.S., it’s an unfamiliar — and often disconcerting — vision for those living in the relatively pristine environs of the Catskills. And while some upstate New Yorkers see the possibility of new jobs and incomes, others fear the fragmentation of forests and farmland, the costs of maintaining roads and services, the ruination of the landscape, and the possible contamination of their streams, rivers, and wells.

“Fracking gets all the headlines,” says the Mountainkeeper’s Gillingham, “but one of the biggest impacts will be the industrialization of the landscape.”


Bruce Stutz writes on science, nature, and the environment. A former editor-in-chief of Natural History, he is a contributing editor to OnEarth. He has written for the New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, Discover and Audubon. He is the author of Natural Lives, Modern Times and Chasing Spring, An American Journey Through a Changing Season. In earlier articles for Yale Environment 360, Stutz wrote about how researchers have been discovering species at a record pace and the role adaptation will play in any climate change plan.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


The concerns of NYC are NOT UNIQUE - just raised for a whole lot of people.

To give one crystal clear example, Syracuse, NY also gets its drinking water from an open source lake and the water is unfiltered - exactly the same as NYC.

Worse yet the watershed for the Syracuse drinking water is filled with land that is leased for gas drilling - in Utica shale which just like Marcellus and is similarly under the current de facto moratorium on drilling.

Not to be too snarky, but we upstaters refer to this "NYC is special" notion as expressed in this article as the "east of the Hudson world view."

There are also lots of us up here who get water from private wells who believe our health and well being are just as important (in a west of Hudson world) as that of NYC.

Separate but equal one might say - oops, remember what happened to that one?

Stanley R Scobie, Binghamton, NY

Posted by Stan Scobie on 25 Mar 2010

Heres my favorite part:

"Then New York City’s report rang up the numbers: Each well pad will take up 5 to 7 acres including roads, pipelines, and storage facilities. There will be 6 to 10 wells per pad. The well bore will go down some 3,000 to 7,000 feet and horizontal sections will extend laterally for 2,000 to 6,000 feet. The fracking process requires, at minimum, several million gallons of water per well. Since the wells will be far from any municipal supply, getting this water to the well will require 800 to 1,200 tanker truck trips or on-site water. If this water is drawn from the city’s watershed it will mean less water in its reservoirs, especially in times of drought. (Eight million gallons of water is equivalent to 320,000 ten-minute showers.)"

5-7 acres... So what, it's not your land, pipelines and storage facilities... How does NYC expect to get their gas? Fracking process take millions of gallons of water.... the leaks in NYC water system loses 4 million gallons of a each day! trucks and traffic.... NYC calling the kettle black.

Posted by Steve Gage on 25 Mar 2010

OK NYC. How do you plan on compensating the landowners once you "STEAL" their mineral rights?

The average price per acre for Marcellus shale is now $8000.00/acre with a 20-25 percent royalty.
Posted by meyr campr on 25 Mar 2010

This reality reveals the dirty in "clean" mined methane. It is more fraud from the fossil fuel endgame (petroleum gas as cleaner) and their financiers.

We already have an economy with too much gas. Fossil fuel is the primary climate change agent along with destruction of trees and forests, which this exploitation will exascerbate. Leaking methane is a much more powerful agent of global heating than even the product of its burning, carbon dioxide, not to mention health degradation from the resultant widespread contamination of public resources, like water.

We just defeated Long Island Sound's proposed Liquified Natural Gas floating industrial terminal from Shell. Here we go again. It is clear the corporate powers that be have no idea what sustainability means. They seem to be locked in to the ideological economics, and failures, of the past.

Posted by James Newberry on 25 Mar 2010

I have lived in Broome County, NY for over 25 years. A study commissioned by the County estimates that 2,000-4,000 Marcellus gas wells will be drilled in Broome.

I agree with the commenter who said that NYC's concerns are NOT unique. Water contamination due to gas drilling is a problem that would not be limited to NYC's watershed. Since setbacks from waterways are actually larger within the watershed, if anything, areas outside the watershed are at greater risk from toxic spills. And we are all at risk for contamination of our groundwater. This contamination can occur when gas well casings fail, when water or gases move through underground fractures, or when water or gases move through abandoned, unplugged gas and oil wells. The DEC estimates that there are tens of thousands of these abandoned wells in NY state.

Water quality is only part of a much larger problem. Since shale gas wells decline rapidly, the landscape in drilling areas quickly becomes covered with a network of gas wells, access roads, pipelines, and compressor stations. Shale gas drilling is an industrial process that should not be taking place in residential areas, yet NY law gives extremely little control to local areas; gas wells can be sited, without public hearings, very close to private homes, schools, streams, rivers, and water wells. Air pollution, habitat fragmentation, high round-the-clock noise levels, extremely heavy truck traffic, and reduced quality of life are just some of the negatives associated with the drilling.

NY should be moving into the 21st century with the development of clean, renewable energy sources. Instead, it is poised to trash the environment and ruin lives with this last gasp of the dirty, fossil-fuel industry. This is a huge, costly tragedy in the making.

Posted by Mary Sweeney on 25 Mar 2010

This article is way off. Its upstate NY's water not yours. Perhaps if NYC would invest some $$ in water purification system, or build a water plant so you can drink the water you live by. Check out this article of wind turbines being rejected because they believe it would result in poor fishing and tourism, harming economic development http:// www. FRAC away landowners, due to foolish people who say one thing and do another. SO MUCH FOR CLEAN ENERGY.

Posted by Jonathan French on 25 Mar 2010

@meyr campr-Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose--so too with polluting my land, air and water. You have no "mineral rights" if your decisions to allow pollution on "your land" somehow gets off "your land" and into my air, my land and my water.

You want your mineral rights? Well then, you and your gas drillers should put up a 30 million bond for every well you drill to cover the costs if these wells and their construction cause damage to your neighbors, roads, waterways, bridges, air quality, etc.

In the end, it has been estimated that NY has a much smaller amount of recoverable gas than other areas of the Marcellus. The estimate is that it amounts to a two year supply for the nation. That's all. So the real question is, do we want to subject NY State to a process that will change the landscape and quality of life for the next 30 years, subject NY's water systems to damage, and increase methane emissions around the state, all to recover 2 years worth of gas?

How about NY holding on to the gas until the commodity is much more valuable? "Drill here, drill now" is economically and environmentally stupid when all the costs and concerns are factored in. A better response would be to wait and let the other states do the wrong thing, see techniques and laws improved, and evaluate what happened in 5-10 years time, when we might actually have better energy solutions or when we might actually NEED the gas.

Posted by LoveCanal2020 on 26 Mar 2010

It's unfortunate that this article focuses on NYC. I'm glad they had the financial resources and political will to do that study, it's useful. However, there are a LOT of folks in upstate NY who are opposed to this. I'd guess that over 65 percent of the 700 people at the January 25 rally in Albany against Hydrofracking — and the rest of the unconventional gas drilling process it represents- came from upstate NY, judging by where the buses came from. And unlike the smaller "pro-fracking" rally being held on the other side of the capitol building at the same time, no one had their buses paid for them; people put their individual time and money on the line to be there and have their voices heard.

Even the American Indians are calling for a ban on hydrofracking:

Posted by upstater on 26 Mar 2010

Who gives a flying carp what the environmentalist say. It's just another lie like global warming was. They will make up any story to push there agenda. It's time we disband the EPA and stop publishing anything said by environmental groups until the facts are checked by non biased sources.

Posted by Rob on 26 Mar 2010

Stimulation of porous rocks by creating fractures through which oil or gas could flow has been used in the oil industry for many years to get more oil out of nearly depleted fields. They originally used nitroglycerine to produce the factures; using water instead of explosives is probably cheaper, and much safer for those doing the work.

In the late 1960s industry, and the Atomic Energy Commission (as part of what was called the Plowshare Project), tried using nuclear bombs to fracture the rocks. They conducted one test in New Mexico to get gas and one in Colorado to get oil. In both cases, the tests were successful, in that they produced the hydrocarbons, but the project was a failure because the gas and oil turned out to be radioactive. The tritium (H3) produced by the devices was incorporated in the gas and oil molecules to the extent that the products had to be diluted with so much non-radioactive hydrocarbons that the process was not cost-effective.

If industry is required to factor in the complete costs of projects such as these (and that includes exernalities such as polluting a city's water supply), these innovative techniques turn out to be questionable.

Posted by tom on 27 Mar 2010

I wonder why people are not concerned about the radiation they will be exposed to by extracting Marcellus Shale gas, or for that matter, by using it.

Merely using regular natural gas to cook with exposes the user to radon gas. This exposure results in 10 - 15 times the dose that living right next to a nuclear plant would. "Fracking" gas out of the Marcellus Shale, which is low grade uranium ore, would result in much more exposure, although I can't find measurements so far.

One reason "environmentalists" would ignore the radiation hazards of using fossil fuels is because it would make it far more difficult for them to pile on or tolerate the activities of the anti nuclear movement who want to shut all reactors down in the US over trillionths of curies of nothing that reaches any drinking water wells such as what is happening at Vermont Yankee.

This is not a good enough excuse for people who claim an independent, scientific perspective. The radiation from natural gas is not regarded as a serious threat by the EPA, but the radiation hazard from nuclear power is an order of magnitude less. Nuclear power, according to the IPCC, is as low carbon an energy source as any renewable. Shutting down even one reactor is of the same order of magnitude as the entire solar power production of Germany.

Continuing to give "fracked" natural gas a free pass on its radiation hazard in this larger context is no longer appropriate.

The wastes of using fossil fuels are the horror we have been duped into believing the wastes of nuclear power are and it is time we reassessed this issue.


Marcellus Shale is "highly radioactive", see top of page 8:

Shales of this type have been mined in Sweden for uranium, The US shales have been similarly considered:

see page 22, and page 29:

Radiation in waste water brought to the surface merely producing this gas is so radioactive that: "13 samples of wastewater brought to the surface... from drilling... contain levels of radium...267 times the limit safe to discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink"


Posted by David Lewis on 27 Mar 2010

I work in the oil and gas industry. Fraccing of wells has been going on for many, many, many
years. It has recently been "discovered" by the eco-corporations as a possible lightning rod
for promoting their own agenda. The harsh reality is that rock mechanics WILL NOT ALLOW
a fracture to propagate vertically more than a few tens of meters. That is reality!

People claiming that fraccing operations a mile deep may impact their drinking water are
ignorant of physics. Time to move on, no story here.

Posted by Tom on 30 Mar 2010

The truth about Natural Gas Fracture Drilling is exposed in the documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox. Millions of gallons of poison are injected into the earth to make the fractures occur. In the process, ground water for drinking, bathing, living is destroyed FOREVER! This is insanity at best. Our government is in bed with the rich who run these companies and turn a blind eye to its terrible effects in the name of ENERGY INDEPENDANCE. "Drill Baby Drill" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are one in the same.

Posted by warren thompson on 02 Apr 2010

1. We need energy.

2. We need water.

3. Item #1 is of little use without item #2. #2 is still useful without #1, but in far smaller quantities.

I don't have answers, only opinions.

Posted by Michael on 06 Apr 2010

The worry here of course is that methane (natural gas) is a much more potent greeenhouse gas, by several orders of magnitude. Sierra Club and other high profile environmental groups really dropped the ball by naively jumping on the fracking band wagon before they knew what they were talking about. My knowledge of all of this was gained by very simple research on the internet and it didn't take me very long at all.

One other item that should be calculated, and could be done very simply by anyone with moderate patience and determination would be a meta energy audit on this process. As pointed out in the article, trucking water in and trucking water out, pumping that water in and pumping it out, and then treating that water all uses energy. The net energy gain of course is the total energy produced minus the energy input needed to produce that energy.

I used to be gung-ho for biodiesel. So interested that I thoroughly researched the process, the potential oil crops, their availabilty, yield per acre, fertilization requirements, etc. I was very thorough. Being experienced in project cost estimation I put together a "test plot" on paper.

Turns out that the biodiesel that this test plot would produce would almost equally balance the energy input needed to produce it. Oh well, but that is why man has developed what we call "the scientific method" instead of relying on wishful or magical thinking. The benefits of this marcellus shale gas and/or CBM (coal bed mehtane, to be extracted by this same process) may turn out to be a case of wishful or magical thinking.

While rushing to exploit these reserves to come closer to energy independence it seems we'll have to import lots more of that Arabian Gulf oil. And by the way, just how did OUR oil get under THEIR sand anyway? The irony here is almost tangible. Just as I suspect that many in the Arabian Gulf region regret the fact of the oil deposits of their homeland because of the poilitical, social, environmental, and military consequences of that black gold, many here in the U.S. may come to share their regret from similar consequences.

Posted by camkay on 07 Apr 2010

Tom said:

The harsh reality is that rock mechanics WILL NOT ALLOW
a fracture to propagate vertically more than a few tens of meters. That is reality!

People claiming that fraccing operations a mile deep may impact their drinking water are
ignorant of physics. Time to move on, no story here.


Yah, thanks Tom... I guess nonoe of that deep water is gonna go further down and then bleed into other sources of water, etc., that do move around.

Yah, we can put a bunch of crap into the earth and it's never gonna come back to bite us in the ass--

Not in Tom's lifetime, I agree--
but what about others' lifetimes?

But oh yah, let's just take the money and run. Nothing new there! :~)


Posted by Presbytera on 19 Jul 2010

@ Steve and his ilk:

According to impeccable research by Rocky Mountain Institute, the UA wastes from 50% to
(in some instances like lighting, etc,) 90% of the energy we use. Steve, you and to a much lesser extent, I, and other readers are as much a part of the problem as the frackers.

Now, I ask you all, under those circumstances, is it wise or insane to support that level of waste by trading your water for gas?

I prefer my water! Remember the Tragedy of the Commons!

Posted by Larry Menkes on 10 Aug 2010

We have now blown up 500 mountains in Appalachia and I am conscerned that the extracive industries could care less to destroy our way of life in the beautiful Fingerlake grap growing region of NY.

over 100 trucks carrying water to a well and taking away the polluted water--- has the energy used to do all this trucking and building of pipelines and all that been figured into the total energy used to extract the gas?

How about waiting and doing this in moderation after the wind and solar is in place and needs gas to fire up when the wind doesn't blow and when the gas prices will be better too.

Now the US department of energy came out with a report at the end of August 2010 that they too want to use these empty Marcellus wells to pump down CO2 produced by coal powered plants-- so that means even more industrialization of our sleepy towns!

Posted by gudrun scott on 03 Oct 2010

Posted by Rob on 26 Mar 2010

"Who gives a flying carp what the environmentalist say. It's just another lie like global warming was. They will make up any story to push there agenda. It's time we disband the EPA and stop publishing anything said by environmental groups until the facts are checked by non biased sources."

Typical ad hominem attack, calling the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who believe global warming poses a potentially serious threat a bunch of liars, then continuing the attack on environmentalists generally, labeling them liars as well.

I chuckled as I speculated just who you might regard as being unbiased. The American Petroleum Institute sprang to mind, as did the Heartland Institute. Maybe the American Enterprise Institute? And you would treasure the opinions of elected officials such as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and Texas Congressman Joe Barton, both fine examples of people who approach such matters evenhandedly and free of bias, no doubt.

Yeah. Right.

Posted by Mekhong Kurt on 02 Nov 2010



How Far Can Technology Go To Stave Off Climate Change?
With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs —such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough.

How Costa Rica Is Moving Toward a Green Economy
With nearly all its electricity generated from renewables, Costa Rica has now set its sights on decarbonizing the transportation sector. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, green-energy activist Monica Araya explains how her country can wean itself entirely off fossil fuels.

From Obama’s Top Scientist, Words of Caution on Climate
As President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren has been instrumental in developing climate policy. In an interview with Yale e360, Holdren talks about the urgency of the climate challenge and why he hopes the next administration will not abandon efforts to address it.

Obama’s Environmental Legacy: How Much Can Trump Undo?
Few groups were as shocked and chagrined by Donald Trump’s victory as the environmental community. Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists, academics, and pro-business representatives just how far Trump might roll back President Obama’s environmental initiatives.

What a Trump Win Means For the Global Climate Fight
Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.


Donate to Yale Environment 360