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
If, as so many here insist, nuclear power generation is economical and environmentally desirable, how can it be that no commercial underwriting firm can be persuaded to cover the potential liability?
If Fukushima has demonstrated one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that nuclear power facilities are incapable of covering the potential liability of their operations. Yet everyone here seems supremely indifferent to this.
If the fact that Japan,a relatively open society, in which (unlike in China or Russia, or, probably, India) whistle-blowers need not fear assasination of imprisonment) could botch its safety measures so badly (keep in mind, if you haven’t managed to miss it altogether, that Reactor #1 melted before the Tsunami struck – as Tepco revealed three months after the fact), leaves no reasonable expectation that less technically advanced and much more repressive societies will be able to manage nuclear power more safely.
Angela Merkel has an advanced degree in physics. Her husband is a physics professor, and she decided that nuclear power is not currently safe to employ. what do Putin, Cameron, Hollande, Obama, and the rest, have for credentials for assessing the advice of their “yes-men”?
otropogo,
Why are you spreading BS?? There simply was not enough TIME for ANY of the reactors to have melted down before the tsunami struck!! It certainly could have STARTED runaway…
It really does not matter. The casings are designed so that in the event of a melt down the core material spreads out on the bottom of the containment vessel increasing the area covered by the fuel and reducing the neutron exchanges so that the reaction naturally slows and stops. The explosions were caused by the attempt, now known to be futile, to cool the reactors and prevent the melt downs that were happening anyway. The core heat broke the water creating explosive hydrogen that had to be vented and that collected in the buildings.
Basically there is exactly ZERO deaths that can be contributed to Fukushima dai-Ichi. The amount of radioactive material leaking is safe to this point and unlikely to increase to a dangerous level. It has shown once again that even the old designs claimed to be dangerous are safer than most other forms of energy production even with HUMANS operating it.
The only real disaster, and it is still overhyped, has been Chernobyl which did not even HAVE a containment vessel, just a water cover to damp radiation. They rave about the millions of deaths caused by Chernobyl. Those deaths are based on the Linear no Threshold stats that Old Engineer referred to. In other words they are practically nonexistent. They cannot be found in the mortality statistics of the cities under the exposure path.
Try researching Hormesis. It is one of the issues that insures that Linear no Threshold stats are totally bogus.
I agree kuhnkat – I’m so sick of the lurid posters circulating on the web about radioactive waste poisoning the pacific ocean etc yet no one actually checks the facts.
Here is the latest report on the radioactivity levels in the ocean 2km from the power station which is being regularly monitored by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority.
The readings are in becquerel per litre. as a reference the US FDA allow 1200 bq/l in food and Japan allows 300bq/l in drinking water.
The readings in the report are below 10bq/l.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/seamonitoring031213.pdf
People don’t realise that there is a sister station to Fukushima only a few kilometers south and it was unaffected by the tsunami.
I see fracking going down the same road as tobacco. A major cause of lung cancer Radon 222 If the industry was fairdinkem they would be warrning people about this toxic gas http://www.prlog.org/12055189-fracking-radon-balanced-view.html
Nuclear, fracking, DDT, genetically modified crops, measles vaccine – a bulging net-full of own goals by the watermelon anti-science movement.
John Morpuss says:
December 7, 2013 at 1:27 am
I see fracking going down the same road as tobacco. A major cause of lung cancer Radon 222 If the industry was fairdinkem they would be warrning people about this toxic gas http://www.prlog.org/12055189-fracking-radon-balanced-view.html
That’s hilarious – they’re digging up the old radon scare for the anti-fracking cause.
The “risks” or radon are a good example of games played using the “linear no threshold” hypothesis to generate a fictitious risk. Lung cancer can only be demonstrated in workers at underground health spas with hot springs where radon levels reach 10,000’s of Bq/m3. The fraudulent trick is then to extrapolate this risk down to zero. e.g. if 10,000 Bq/m3 for x years gives 1% (imaginary example, not real data) lung cancer risk, then 10 Bq/m3 gives 0.0001% risk. Since everyone’s house has at least 10 Bq/m3, then the 0.0001% is multiplied by the whole population. Hey presto – mega-deaths, political influence!
A more accurate picture of the relationship between radon and lung cancer can be seen here:
http://www.aarst.org/proceedings/1988/1988_06_Correlation_Between_Mean_Radon_Levels_Lung_Cancer_Rates_in_US_Counties.pdf
My grandparents lived in a house over a fractured (naturally!) granite formation in Cornwall, I measured radon in their house at ~1000 Bq/m3 (UK average 20 Bq.m3). They lived happily into their 90’s.
Tom G(ologist) says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm
“If I could show you how our production reserves have INCRAEASED as a result of the performance of the Marcellus Shale during our first year of operations, you would be astounded as well. It is far above the USGS estimates.”
———————-
Tom G, your production reserves increase wouldn’t astound me very much because I’ve been watching the increase in drilling activity here in WV as well as reading press releases such as this, to wit:
“WHEELING (January 22, 2011) – Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon said his company sees so much potential in West Virginia’s Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves that it plans to spend as much as $50 billion in the state.”
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/551077/Company-To-Invest–50-Billion-In-W-Va-.html?nav=515
$50 billion investment = horrendous NG reserves
And as you probably already know, the number of Marcellus wells that have already been drilled in PA is just a tad less than the number that has been drilled in WV.
“This opinion should create quite a stir amongst enviros. – Anthony”
http://rt.com/search/everywhere/term/fracking/
It’ll upset the Russians.
Janice Moore says:
December 6, 2013 at 2:18 pm
“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, :”
———————-
If Rud was mistaken …. why are you criticising Mr. Mosher? He is not obligated to post excuses for Rud’s mistakes.
Rud (December 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm) first stated: “Muller is right on principle, but weak on facts.”
But then, according to Mosher, apparently Rud never did his own ‘facts checking’ before stating this: “From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, ….”
Being mistaken ONCE is sometimes permissible. Being mistaken two (2) or more times about the same thing is NOT permissible ….. and the guilty party should be criticized for doing so. When mistakes are not “criticized”, …. any further education is not possible.
And ps, Ms. Moore, Depression is NOT a physical disorder of the brain. Depression IS a self-nurtured mental disorder of the mind ….. and the consumption of anti-depressants only serve to “mask” or “lessen” the effects of “feeling” depressed. Pain pills and anti-depressants are like “two peas in a pod”. Neither one cures the “problem”, they only “mask” the effect(s) caused by the “problem”.
Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.
No. The only “challenges” posed by greenhouse warming are those in the fevered imaginations of CAGW proponents like Richard Muller. Yes, air pollution is certainly a problem in developing countries like China and India. That is their concern, however, not ours. We have no business telling them what to do about it. If developing their natural gas reserves makes economic sense, and I imagine it does, then it will happen.
The primary thrust of Muller’s “argument” appears to primarily be one of anti-coal, rather than pro-fracking. He uses the typical Alarmist tactics of exaggeration and partial-truths to make his case. FAIL.
Dolf says:
December 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm
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!
============================================
Dolf, there are many good posts below yours that begin to address this, and the false linear harm basis of such claims. However the heavy smog in many Chinese cities reminds me of the late 60s and early 70s in the US, particularly LA which I frequently visited. Air pollution of particulates is not CO@ur momisugly, an immensely beneficial gas. The clean air act did enormous good. Particulates are a problem and coal can and does successfully produce energy, without producing “smog”
Mosher does not address this at all, and his condescension towards folk in general is exceedingly annoying. Besides, he is often wrong.
old engineer says:
December 6, 2013 at 10:23 pm
“Whenever I see a statement like:
“A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year…”
I always ask myself “ How did they determine that?” And so should everybody. You can bet there are not 3 million people with: “cause of death: an overdose of PM2.5” on their death certificate.”
———————-
Right you are, old engineer, ….. and I have been asking myself that same question for nigh onto 40+- years.
And the same goes for: “cause of death: cigarette smoke induced lung cancer” on their death certificate.
I figured that anyone that marks “YES” on their medical records as being a “cigarette smoker”, …… then no matter if they get shot or run over by a truck, ….. they will likely get counted in the “cigarette smoking related death statistics”.
One can easily see the stupidity of those outrageous claims if they look at the … “geographical distribution of cancer deaths” ….. rather than looking at the “total number of reported cancer deaths”. And one can easily do said via the following interactive web site, to wit:
State Cancer Profiles – create dynamic views of incidences of cancer
http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/map/map.noimage.php
So, “click” the above link, …. choose your preference of parameters ….. then create your “cancer incident” map.
Then ask yourself: “Why is the number of reported cancer deaths extremely high in some states, …. and/or some counties” …. and/or some locales, …. but not in others”?
Muller’s Nemesis theory has been mentioned. His book ‘Nemesis’ is a superb scientific story, I highly recommend it. Despite its title, it’s really the story of how the Alvarez group discovered what (probably) killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Muller created his Nemesis theory in order to explain why ages of craters on the Earth seemed to follow a cyclical pattern. As far as I’m aware, he was unable to find observational evidence (a distant, dim companion of the sun) and he’s probably dropped the idea now. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s how science is supposed to work.
To his credit, Muller ripped Mann’s hockey stick into pieces but, as far as I’m aware, he was never a climate sceptic. I have to say I’m completely baffled as to why he thinks global warming is a serious threat. All the evidence seems to show that the mild warming we enjoyed in the last century has been, overall, of great benefit to the world and mankind. And AGW is so badly flawed that predictions of many degrees of warming are completely ridiculous. The very idea that anyone – least of all climate scientists who have a huge vested interest in dangerous warming – can forecast the climate in fifty or a hundred years in the future is mind-numbingly stupid. These models can’t even forecast the weather a few weeks ahead.
Still, I’m glad he supports fracking, for whatever reason.
Chris
Samuel C Cogar says: December 7, 2013 at 4:42 am
And ps, Ms. Moore, Depression is NOT a physical disorder of the brain. Depression IS a self-nurtured mental disorder of the mind ….. and the consumption of anti-depressants only serve to “mask” or “lessen” the effects of “feeling” depressed. Pain pills and anti-depressants are like “two peas in a pod”. Neither one cures the “problem”, they only “mask” the effect(s) caused by the “problem”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow. So much stupid, inane opinion here I don’t even know where to begin….Off topic so I won’t comment other than call B.S.
Chris Wright says:
December 7, 2013 at 6:45 am
“he’s probably dropped the idea now.”
Evidence, please.
Janice Moore says: December 6, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Dear Mr. Mosher,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I sympathize with Mosher and appreciate the opportunity to here from a working scientist in the field. I’m sure he’s frustrated as he runs the gauntlet of some of the more zealous mud throwers in these parts.
Richard D., I hope you are not referring to Mr. Mosher with a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy and a career in marketing, a “working scientist in the field”.
“A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year…” epidemiology gone wild. The usual findings are that some surrogate end point (such as ‘carotid intima-media thickness’) can be shown, by mathematical model, to have a relative risk after exposure of a shocking 1.01-1.02! All cause deaths (one might wonder why they look at ALL cause deaths — it is unlikely that PM2.5 causes accidental deaths, auto accident deaths, general deaths from old age, etc) — shown, in “results from the random effects Cox models without and with contextual ecologic covariates” of the same shocking RR 1.01 – 1.02. You should be getting the idea here. [ according to the latest HEI update: http://tinyurl.com/m6yyzjh ]
In the US — both the National and all nine Regional PM2.5 levels are, and have been for years, below the national standard for PM 2.5, and are trending even lower.
The evidence pointing to PM 2.5 particulates being deadly is so very thin and tenuous that only an EPA Administrator could believe it.
Indeed, with the proper technologies used, coal is definitely “21st century power:
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/08/coal-is-21st-century-power/
Prof. Muller is assuming that the average “Environmentalist” is motivated by concern for the environment or the welfare of the energy deprived citizens of the Third World.
Nothing could be further from the truth, they are not referred to as ‘Watermelons’ – Green on the outside and Red on the inside – for nothing.
I just got back from Suzhou and Shanghai yesterday. The air was so bad (450-550 ppm), rated extreme hazard by the WHO. The Shanghai airport had flights cancelled and delayed because of the low visibility.
The air smelled very bad and my eyes burned. I was lucky and my flight left an hour late.
His lips are moving.
Poptech says: December 7, 2013 at 7:39 am
Richard D., I hope you are not referring to Mr. Mosher with a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy and a career in marketing, a “working scientist in the field”.
___________________________
What’s your point, Poptech?
Steven Mosher: the real hero of Climategate? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 12th, 2010.
“Steven Mosher. An open-source software developer, statistical data analyst, and ….+
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022057/steven-mosher-the-real-hero-of-climategate/
I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950’s, right in the smack center of it — when the smog was so thick one couldn’t see the surrounding hills. It was bad, sometimes one’s eyes burned. But we didn’t drop like flies.
I don’t believe the data show a dose response 1950 to 2000 for LA residents. They should show much more mortality then than now, based on this new PM 2.5 bugabear.
I don’t like smog — but LA doesn’t have it now like they did then.
China may have it — they don’t seem to have been listening to the air pollution solutions developed over the last 50 years.
@ur momisugly Richard D — thanks for the affirmation at 7:06am today. I didn’t even BEGIN, lol. It was intriguing that Cogar chose my relatively benign post re: Steven Mosher to attack instead of the more forthright (and likely far more accurate) post by Jim F at 6:56pm yesterday (nor did he respond to those of J Quip and UKus).
*******************************************
@ur momisugly Pop Tech — I get your point. Apparently, Richard D thinks that those credentials and his having had the good fortune to have had the Climategate e mails handed to him, a pro-AGW person(!) — and why hasn’t he published the third set, yet? — by the WUWT moderator on duty that night, make Steven Mosher an expert in some kind of hard science relevant to air pollution and or geology and or frac’ing (still trying, Tom G. — smile).
TRM says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm
”Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer. That is lots of time to get LFTR and other technologies figured out Unless we get lazy, complacent and stupid.”
So many think we have to do something. Look, it’s truly magic. It wasn’t someone seeking a solution to CAGW or prosperity, or whatever that led to development of fracking technology. It was the beautiful, eternal magic of profit. The way the various technologies – horses to cars, etc. came to pass wasn’t through people getting together to find out what we could do about larger cities and the ordure of horses. Nope, it was automatic. Sit back and enjoy the new things that just will unfold before you, or better, join in and make a dollar as you go. It is a central_planning mindset that figures we have to jump up get something going to replace a foundering technology.