By Jacki Pick in Fortune. She is the executive vice president and chief operating officer at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Excerpts:
"The U.S. already leads the world in carbon emissions
reduction, with emissions down 26% since the shale boom hits its stride
in 2007. Why? Because of the use of natural gas, a fossil fuel, now
produced in historic volumes made possible through fracking, or
hydraulic fracturing.
Fracked natural gas has been key to reducing U.S.
carbon emissions to their lowest levels since 1988, the U.S. Department
of Energy recently announced.
Over the same 27 year time-frame, figures from the
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis show the U.S. economy nearly doubled,
growing about 50% when gross domestic product is adjusted for inflation.
With the shale boom, lower emissions and economic growth need not be at odds
Our economic growth was largely the result of cheap
fossil fuels. They feed our electric grid, enable the digital
revolution, run our transportation sector, manufacture American durable
goods and electronics, and produce petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals."
"1.2
million wells have been fracked in the U.S. Because of historic
production through fracking, the U.S. was the top natural gas and
petroleum producer on earth in 2014, and our energy costs have
fallen. U.S. industrial electricity costs are now 30-50% lower than
those of our foreign competitors, resulting in a manufacturing
renaissance and the “reshoring” of perhaps millions of American jobs,"
"Americans, using American ingenuity with advances in
fracking and horizontal drilling, harnessed the free market to
accomplish what the president, the EPA and the environmental groups have
failed to achieve: America’s status as the top carbon emissions reducer
in the world, simultaneous with a doubling of the economy. We should
not be surprised; the U.S. oil and gas industry invests more in carbon
emissions reduction tech than the U.S. government and all other
industries combined, according to the American Petroleum Institute."
How does the President’s plan compare to the frackers’ record?
Obama’s unproven plan would yield less carbon
reduction than fracking over twice the time frame. This plan, built on
nonsensical assumptions and costly, inferior energy production methods,
outlines a 32% reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels, and
demands this outcome by 2030. Since frackers have already achieved a 26%
reduction in carbon emissions since 2007, the job is mostly done. If
the president would simply stay out of the way, the remainder of his
goal would come about on its own through market forces (continued
displacement of other fuels by natural gas) and greater efficiency
through innovation.
"The consulting firm NERA warned
that the Clean Power Plan, even in its original, less ambitious form,
would be the most expensive regulation ever imposed upon the power
sector (passed on to consumers). Energy Ventures Analysis estimated that
industrial electricity rates could double."
"Commissioner Moeller of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) opined that the president’s
approach threatens to bring “widespread rotating blackouts,”
sporadically killing whatever productivity remains and leaving Americans
vulnerable during the most severe weather events.
Fracking is the answer to carbon emissions reduction
Enough already. Fracking for natural gas is the
answer to carbon emissions reduction, and even Obama’s top officials
such as his EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, and Secretary of Energy,
Ernest Moniz, have spoken publicly about the safety of fracking.
If you like your clean air, do not thank the
President. Thank the membership of the American Natural Gas Association
and the pioneers of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
One great lesson of the success of U.S. carbon
emissions reduction is that government is not the answer. If the
president and environmental groups are serious about lowering carbon
emissions, they will begin to promote what works by getting out of the
way, rather than trumpeting that which fills the coffers with carbon tax
dollars and Big Green contributions."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.