The Science Environmentalists Don’t Want to Hear

12

If I told you that the hydrofracking industry was beneficial for the environment, that hydrofracking has significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions – would you believe it? Fear-mongering environmentalists would like you to believe the evil corporate fracking machine is destroying the world when, in fact, the opposite is occurring. According to a compilation of 75 scientific studies, released by Energy In Depth, hydrofracking has created millions of jobs while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions – reducing the rise of climate change.

One of the biggest indictments against the hydrofracking industry has been the argument that fracking is designed to produce methane, and methane is proven to be 25 times more detrimental to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. However, according to the evidence, scientists have “concluded that methane emissions are declining in both absolute terms and per unit of gas produced, despite an enormous increase in the amount of gas produced.” Generally speaking, natural gas production has steadily increased every year dating back to 1986.frack

It has long been argued that any benefit society receives from burning natural gas is negated by the amount of methane fracking releases into the atmosphere. But according to the scientific data, this claim has no basis in reality. The studies also “found that methane emissions from the natural gas industry are sharply falling, even though production of natural gas has spiked. Absolute methane emissions from natural gas fell by 15 percent between 1990 and 2014, and emissions per unit of natural gas produced dropped by 43 percent over the same period.

In addition to these facts, the natural gas industry has proven to be more beneficial to the environment than other popular sources of energy. In fact, when burned, natural gas produces 83% less carbon dioxide than coal – to produce the same amount of BTU value. Furthermore, ever since the market began to dramatically shift from coal to natural gas around 2005, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased 12% over this same time period.

Even the FDA supports these statistics; last April, the EPA released a report stating that “a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity has occurred due to increased natural gas consumption.” The EPA found that methane, in particular, only accounts for 10.6% of natural gas emissions. Breaking down this statistic further, the vast majority of methane emissions are produced from livestock, not the natural gas industry. Approximately 2.6% of all greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the natural gas industry.

At the present moment in time, the FDA is debating new legislation which would impose more restrictions on the natural gas industry, making it harder for hydrofracking practices to continue to expand. But as the numbers indicate, this type of legislation may have the reverse effect on the environment. Likely, such legislation would cause the industry to shift back towards coal, which is proven to be much more detrimental to the environment. Similarly, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both promisedto put the coal minors back to work,” during recent speeches.

According to a separate study conducted by the Manhattan Institute last November, the largest driving factor behind the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions “is fracking, not solar or wind power.” Similarly, according to Scientific American and the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide emissions dropped in 47 of 50 states in 2015– specifically because of “fracking, not government green policies.” In fact, the United States has dropped greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country on Earth. Many scientists directly attribute this fact to the nation’s shift towards the natural gas market.

Source: The Libertarian Republic


You want to support Anonymous Independent & Investigative News? Please, follow us on Twitter: 


This article (The Science Environmentalists Don’t Want to Hear) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article using a creative commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ. Join the conversations at www.anonboards.com

Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here

Loading...
Remove all ads by clicking here

12 COMMENTS

  1. What a ridiculous article claiming black is white! Burning gas releases CO2 and therefore increases Climate Change.. How can you say it is ”beneficial to the environment”. Yet another attempt to boost their profits by the evil US corporations destroyimg our planet.

    • Idealism is useless as we do not live in an ideal world. USA will never be Germany. At least we have been moving in a better direction with natural gas, something we wont if Trump and Clinton make a switch back to coal and if “activists” remain uneducated about natural gas in this country.

  2. Lol
    A good way to continue the fracking…
    You’ve forgotten what’s the real problem about fracking. How many sorts of chemical products the fracking need to be operative ? How tons of water the fracking need to inject underground ? How many earthquakes are the result of the fracking ? Have you ever seen from satellit view how some areas are definitly disfigure ?

  3. this is a terrible and totally inaccurate article…from the “libertarian republic” no less…In fact, it is so bad, I’m not going to follow Anonymous anymore on facebook. Really bad journalism, come on, I thought your whole platform was about “exposing the truth” not perpetuating lies and garbage

    • I told you that you wouldn’t want to hear it.

      75 independent studies, statements from the FDA… inaccurate? Sorry information hurts your feelings.

      • 75 INDEPENDANT studies from the Energy in Depth. Seems more like hand-picked studies, chosen to show the message gas companies and others alike (backers of Energy in Depth) wanted to show.
        My source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_in_Depth

        This is the kind of junk science people belive without looking at the source. Source and where the money comes is everything.

        Gas lowers CO2 emmisions to some degree, but will not be enought to get CO2 to a sustaineable level (meaning, gas isn’t a longterm solution). If we keep gas generation on a few decades more, climate change will still be catastrophic.

        Also, the article was written without mention of clean water problems or earthquake making, one of major risks when using fracking.

        Again, any research is easy to adjust to get the results you want. That’s the reason you need independant institutions making a claim.

  4. This article completely ignores the fact that hydro fracking destroys vital resources such as water sheds and aquifers. Poisoning the ground is just as bad as poisoning the air.

  5. WTF Anonymous!! The 75 “scientific” studies cited in this article were released by Energy in Depth, the gas industry’s PR outreach arm, which is funded by oil and gas industry goliaths such as BP, Halliburton, Chevron and Shell. And we all know how ethical and trustworthy they are! Last week a totally fake story about Snowden and Bin Laden and now this!! I love the idea of a leaderless co-operative, but it doesn’t seem to be working, if people are free to publish dangerous crap like this under the Anonymous banner. So sad!!

  6. Here is the truth : There is no way that you can measure the amount of CO2 in the air ?
    When it is put in the air it mixes with air so it becomes diluted : Thins out ?
    So 100 % of what they say about the air quality is 100 % Bull Shit !
    I have tested the air and I know what I a talking about ! Most of the CO2 stays close to the ground : If you get up early and are on a hill overlooking the big city , You can see a pink cloud floating over the city : That is CO2 ! CFC’s and a lot more heavy gases ! TRUE !

  7. It’s easy to find a way to support fracking when gasoline has become so cheap. When your creek turns orange, the aquifers are poisoned, then what. Maybe the sky is cleaner – but a planet full of poisoned water does not bode well for life.

  8. What it comes down to in many cases is, do you want to use the stuff as a fuel, or merely to boil your vegetables and brew a cup of tea?
    If CO2 really is a major threat to our survival, ban warfare immediately, and we could all possibly relax without guilt for once.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here