Green groups loved nuclear power back in the 1950s, so long as
we would swear off abundant coal (and, at the time, oil) for
producing electricity. Then nukes became reality and, well, the
greens changed their tune. Natural gas was considered too valuable
for mere electricity production - yeah, re-read that, and think of
it when EPA’s ‘utility MACT’ closes plants and shuts off the lights
in a few short years - so it wasn’t really in the equation.
That latter reality changed over time, thanks to e.g., the Arab
oil embargo and the war on coal, and therefore so did the way the
greens receive the notion of fuel-switching. What, you say
we’re awash in it? Why, this mean wo-ah!
Of course, leading gas purveyors like Chesapeake Energy are also
among the most odious promoters of the ‘global warming’ agenda (gas
guys were early partners, along with the green groups, in Enron
inventing the global warming industry), and generally of windmill
and other such mandates. This is not just because that agenda is
really a war on coal in its objective and its means, but also
because for practical reasons what that really means is more
gas-fired plants. In short, the wind and sun are not only too
diffuse given those stubborn laws of physics, but fickle mistresses
as well…a new twist on the old ‘waiter, the food was horrible
and the portions too small’ gag.
So it is that today we see our newly abundant natural gas, the
latest in the decades-long series of energy sources that were
deemed to be an acceptable ‘bridge’ energy source to pixie dust,
Flubber and moonbeams - so long as it remains theoretical - taking
it on the chin in a new
report.
A Cornell professor (of ecology and environmental biology, in
case you had any question about that) and his team conclude that
the carbon (equivalent) footprint of gas produced by hydraulic
fracturing - the extraction procedure which makes recent
discoveries so spectacularly bountiful - is anywhere from 20% to
100% higher than coal.
Even though its sales pitch was that it is about 50% lower. Huh.
So now natural gas is bad, too. And we’ll just rely on electricity,
instead.
Of course, things could be worse. They could have alleged
something rather more credible in the public’s eyes than a man-made
global warming threat. Still, it’s pretty clear that if someone
invented pixie dust the greens would immediately point to some
paper claiming a link between pixie dust and childhood (always
the children, luv,
no matter how reprehensible one must be to say so) respiratory
distress. If we bottled moonbeams to keep the lights on, radiation
fears would be stoked.
It all beats arguing their real fear, which is of energy sources
that meet our demand.
All of which actually affirms a remarkable consistency by our
otherwise highly volatile anti-energy lobby:
opposition to anything which might work, once it that moves
from theory to reality.
