This opinion should create quite a stir amongst enviros. – Anthony
Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.
A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking. His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.
Watch the animation:
As such, air pollution is currently harming far more people than the more distant challenge of global warming – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India. They state:
“The Health Effects Institute estimated that air pollution in 2010 led to 3.2 million deaths that year [across the world], including 1.2 million in China and 620,000 in India. And the pollution is getting worse as global use of coal continues to grow…
The Mullers argues that both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the responsible development and utilisation of shale gas:
“China not only has the greatest yearly death toll from air pollution, but is also key for mitigating global warming. China surpassed the US in CO2 production in 2006; growth was so rapid that by late 2013, China’s CO2 emissions are nearly twice those of the US. If its growth continues at this rate (and China has averaged 10% GDP growth per year for the past 20 years) China will be producing more CO2 per person than the US by 2023. If the US were to disappear tomorrow, Chinese growth alone would bring worldwide emissions back to the same level in four years. To mitigate global warming, it is essential to slow worldwide emissions, not just those in the developed countries. And we feel this must be done without slowing the economic growth of the emerging world…”
“It is believed that China has enormous reserves of shale gas, perhaps 50% larger than those of the US. If that shale gas can be utilised, it offers China a wonderful opportunity to mitigate air pollution while still allowing energy growth… Industry experts believe that the cubic metres of gas recovered from a given well can be doubled in the near future by better design of the fracking stages to match geologic formation characteristics. And they also believe that number could double again in the next decade. Soon that will mean four times the production for only a minor increase in cost. Such an advance is expected to turn currently difficult fields into major producers, to open up fields in China, Europe, and the US that are currently unprofitable.”
The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.
Developed economies should therefore help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas; and shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared freely.
And China and Europe are well placed to take advantage of fracking. The high price paid in China and Europe for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to the US$3.50 in the US) means that the cost of shale drilling and completion can be much higher and still be profitable.
The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
Source: http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/why-every-serious-environmentalist-should-favour-fracking/
h/t Steven Mosher
“The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.”
____________________
The mullers are seriously confused- when have environmentalists ever shown that they have any regard for “society” (people, in general.)
“From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, many of them have the Monterrey problem. China is neither stupid not technically inept. If they aren’t developing their shale deposits,,there are good geophysical reasons.”
Rud has never been to china to meet with those who are working on fracking today
Rud doesnt have a chinese geologist on staff advising him.
Rud has no understanding of the role existing leases play in the problem
Rud has no understanding of the role existing subsidies play
Rud has no understanding of what Shell is doing for example.
傻子
The reasons are not geophysical. It will take a long time to dispell these myths
China is a big place, and it takes some time to work out the best production techniques in different basins. West Texas has many prospective units for horizontal drilling and fracking, and may one day surpass some of the areas it currently lags behind. It is premature to say the lack of shale production in China indicates lack of potential. i worked a bit on the Daquing basin and there are lacustrine shales present which I could see being significant one day. We still have a lot to learn.
PM 2.5 is an interesting issue. I have not delved into the “science” behind it, but I suspect that it is overblown like so many toxicological studies. Much of the scare of diesel exhaust was based on heavy overloading of target tissues which did respond negatively. But work by the Lovelace Respiratory Institute in Albuquerque showed that laboratory animals exposed to ambient levels of PM emissions had no different response than control animals. So much of our tox data is based on overexposure. If the immune system is not overloaded, it copes marvelously with low level toxic materials. If it didn’t, we would all live short, brutal lives. I welcome others’ opinions on this topic.
Steven Mosher says: December 6, 2013 at 11:27 am
well, no. we visit china often and are fully briefed on their plans. If you want to good place to start, start here http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html
the approach is first things first. Coal is the most damaging. the easiest step to take is to move from coal to natural gas. three main benefits: reduced pollution, reduced costs, and mitigation of GHGs. you dont even have to believe in global warming to see that it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, indeed. I remember the days when we cared about improving the quality of air and water. I’m constantly dismayed by the anti-environmental energy solutions promoted by so called environmentalists……..Mosher’s right. Add some nuclear to the mix along with fracking and you can greatly improve air quality in rapidly growing countries.
Oh noes, not another previously unknown hazardous dimension. Realize that while there are more than one, there will be a ‘worst’. PM-2.5 particles are said to cause atherosclerosis against which the Statins, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are the most highly prescribed drugs in world.
I have seen claims that “fracked” oil and gas has a very high depletion rate. This might be that a given well runs out quickly, making this resource expensive because you have to keep making new wells into the formation to extract the oil or gas. Or it might be that the resource is more limited than its champions claim.
Is this cloud of dispair surrounding a long hoped energy abundance politically driven by people who just don’t want to see energy-driven prosperity? Or is there some substance to the doubters on fracking? I have been following the CO2 Global Warming controversy here and other places to have some sense of the arguments, but what should I make of this argument?
This suffers from the same defect that appears on this site over and over: the idea that the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide is good only for plants. and that trivially, while otherwise it is a dangerous pollutant that must be reduced.
In fact, carbon dioxide is VITAL in animal physiology as well. You could not survive more than a few minutes, or maybe seconds, if the CO2 in your body were removed. It is a vital pH balancer that is probably also used in thousands of biochemical reactions.
At increasing concentrations up to at least forty times ambient (probably more) it increases animal well-being and longevity.
–Esther Cook, Lady Life Grows
M.S. Animal Physiology, University of Arizona
The Chinese communist Party and business elites are playing footsie. They will make noises about the environment but continue to consolidate their position while enriching themselves.
Burn baby burn!
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124319304482150525
There are problems with fracking —
* Fracking makes energy abundant
* Fracking make energy inexpensive
* Fracking reduces control of the energy supply by the statist central planners
* Fracking prevents us from developing all those wonder, theoretical, unlimited energy sources that only exists in environmentalist’s imagination.
Shale gas is well worth exploring and using when safe and feasable. But I am amazed that this argued based on huge pm deaths which sounds at least as alarmistic as warmists claims, and as ill-founded. It would be worth if this site investigates the pm2.5 claims as thorough as it does with the flawed CO2 claims!
Dear Mr. Mosher,
Okay, ad argumentum, Rud was mistaken. Your post would be more helpful if you instead answered and not merely posed those issues, i.e, :
1. What do those “working on fracking today” report on the situation in China?
2.What does that Chinese geologist report about frac’ing in China?
3.What is the role played in China by the existing leases you refer to?
4. What is the role played by the subsidies you refer to?
5. What is Shell doing?
All you have said above, essentially is:
“‘Rud is a fool.’ I know why, but, I am not going to tell you what I know.”
btw: How does it make one a “fool” to be simply mistaken? Why the name-calling (at this stage, anyway)?
I hope that you have more joy in your heart than your WUWT comments over the past several months indicate. I’m really sorry if you are suffering from depression (I am not being sarcastic). That is a heavy burden to haul with you wherever you go. I have friends who will be taking their anti-depressants (if you decide to try them, hang in there, there IS one that fits you with no unpleasant side-effects; it can take 2 or 3 or more tries, sometimes, to find the right one AND the right dose) for the rest of their lives — they are determined not to ever go back into “the pit.” Depression is a brain, i.e., a physical, disorder. Taking something to help your neurons better fire is no different than someone who needs to stay on heart meds or insulin for the rest of his or her life. Ignore the stigma and DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU. Exercise helps. Also, watch more comedies!
Coming from me, all this will have little persuasive weight, no doubt, but ASK YOUR FRIENDS. Believe them (if it turns out they say the same things I do). They care. I do, too. You matter, Mr. Mosher. Take care of yourself.
Yours,
Janice
Did someone actually say they are fully briefed on China’s energy plans? I sense nose elongation.
Talking about India, over 300,000 babies die each year within the first 24 hours of birth, 1.7 million children die before the age of 5, 1.2 million die each year in car accidents. Over half of adult males smoke and cancer causes over 600,000 deaths. So if the poverty, smoking or bad drivers don’t get you the air eventually will. Having been there a few times I would say poverty is even more important than air pollution. Of course they didn’t fully brief me on their energy plans.
@ur momisugly Ms. Esther Cook, M.S. — You go, girl! Good for you. A fine, informative, and well-informed, comment from someone whose views should be respected and valued.
I have no science credentials; and I say, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!” #(:))
Re: “…many inside China now feel pride in the government’s model of authoritarian development… (quoted by Clipe at 2:06pm today)
Disgusting. They eagerly embrace what no freeborn person would every willingly submit to.
I’ll stick with, “Give me liberty, or give me death!, so help me, God.
And not ALL Chinese are such bootlickers. Remember this man? Remember! Those who love liberty are still there, but they have to be very careful about what they say. We are with you, O Freedom-loving Chinese! Don’t give up!!!
1989 Tieneman Square, Communist China
PM2.5 is a generic name of particles smaller that 2.5 microns. There are natural sources of PM2.5 such as salt spray from the oceans to storm dust from land especially deserts. PM2.5 is an important component in the water cycle as the particles forms the nucleus for the formation of rain drops. Without PM2.5 the world could be a very humid with limited rainfall. Just like essential minerals in low concentration they are important for health but at high concentrations they could be destructive. This is the problem of the scare strategy to gather environmental awareness. It is the negative impacts that are high lighted and the other side often ignored. PM 2.5 could be fingerprinted to determine its source and this is an important exercise to develop cost effective pollution control policies, plans and programs rather than blaming coal fired power plants and brown coal right away. Renewable energy from biomass combustion is a major source of PM2.5.
The reference to Asthma in the video is not correct.
Rud. I am developing the Marcellus on and in front o the Allegheny Structural Front where the rock is folded and thrust faulted. We are able to do ths as a small independent gecause the majors have to answer to stockholders and the pay out might not be as good. But it is, and we are running laterals out to 7,000 + ft at depths of 9000 ft. With geo steering we can ramp over folds, climb up section to stay in the pay zone when we cross a fault, go up dip, down dip… A little riky but we are doing it
Steven Mosher says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm
====================
My search of your Chinese phrase, translates as:
傻子 {noun}
sap · sap · idiot · simpleton · greenhorn · jackass · nincompoop · poop · a nut · poops · ninny · nitwit
———
Which exactly did you mean ?
Just curious.
Lady Life Grows: “At increasing concentrations up to at least forty times ambient (probably more) it increases animal well-being and longevity.”
So the lesson here is: To improve carbon sequestration we should lower the concentrations and thus negatively effect the reproductive spread and longevity of aerobic organisms.
/runs for it
u.k.(us): “Which exactly did you mean ?”
Why ask a 诡辩学者 about arguments that 攻击人?
Jquip says:
December 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm
u.k.(us): “Which exactly did you mean ?”
Why ask a 诡辩学者 about arguments that 攻击人?
—
(Why ask a sophist about arguments that attack ?).
This is kinda fun, but I don’t think it will last 🙂
@Janice Moore
Thanks for your comments and video on China, right on.
@ur momisugly U.K. (US) and J Quip — lol, I’d love to join in your fun banter, but, after I read (a long time ago…) of The Coca Cola Corp.’s marketing blunder in China (they put “Coke” into Chinese characters that meant: “Bite the Wax Tadpole” — lots of unsold inventory…), I’m kind of nervous about trusting the online translators (and that’s all I have to go on).
I really wish we could reach Steven Mosher’s heart. He seems so unhappy.
Thanks for your wit and fun above, guys (gals? — yes, yes, UKUS, I recall you played hockey, but, still… #(:))
*************************************
@ur momisugly Tom “Frac’ing” G. Ologist — that is TERRIFIC. Way to go. Very impressive work your operation is doing. Oh, and…. you’re welcome….. (smile).