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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t believe it and if it was true you list them higher up in the order, not last. None of this changes the fact that Mosher is NOT a scientist.
You seem confused who you are talking to as not only did I attend a technical research university but have extensive training in computer science, something Mosher does not. The amount of mathematics and hard science courses I took would be more than an English major as well. You are correct though I do not have any formal training in Philosophy nor his much more extensive training in English Literature.
No one is disputing Mosher does not appear as a co-author on those papers. Our’s hosts assertion (which I do not believe until shown evidence) is that his contributions to those papers was “significant” (which is subjective either way) not that he is a scientist. A significant contribution is what Anthony did on the Fall et al. paper where he is the first listed co-author not the tenth or ninth. Non-scientists like Mosher contribute to scientific papers all the time, that does not make them a scientist.
I am well aware of the actual proven “contributions” (most of which is making snide remarks) from Mr. Mosher, which has nothing to do with him pretending to be a scientist. If you refuse to concede this and Mr. Mosher wishes to continue to mislead people, I have other ways to deal with these issues.
If you refuse to concede this and Mr. Mosher wishes to continue to mislead people, I have other ways to deal with these issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stop, please. You’re only embarrassing yourself, again. Whatever your beef with Mosher it’s beyond dispute that he contributes to Berkley Earth as a scientist and works with Dr. Muller, who is the topic of this thread. To claim otherwise is simply bizarre – mendacious really.
The only thing beyond dispute it that Mosher contributes to Berkeley Earth (unaffiliated with the University of Berkeley) and they fictitiously call him a “scientist”.
So it appears I need to take further action on this again.
I would like to take a bet at how many WUWT regulars are unaware that “Berkeley Earth” is unaffiliated with the University of Berkeley and registered to a home address.
David Ball says:
December 8, 2013 at 6:50 am
“Just so you are aware, academia is a very narrow measure of intellect.”
————
Now that is a quote well worth repeating ……. and I will save it for that very purpose.
I like it even better than this one, to wit:
“If you could reason with the CAGW believers, there would be no CAGW believers“.
Poptech, I was aware. Important to point out. Thank you.
Samual C Cogar, I am humbled. Thank you.
Sorry, Samuel. Did not intend to misspell your name. Mods? Little help?
Richard D says:
December 8, 2013 at 8:32 am
“Samuel the dispute was with Poptech who objected to my assertion that I believed Steven Mosher to be a working scientist.”
————
Richard, you can assert or profess to believe anything that “turns-your-crank” ….. but you can not affirm, confirm, justify or prove the “truth” of your beliefs by simply citing a reference to an unknown (to you) person’s opinion, claim or commentary. And I say that to you because, unless you yourself have learned knowledge and/or experience in/of the subject matter then it is not possible for you to accurately judge the merits of said opinion, claim or commentary. And you can’t base you beliefs solely on a “consensus of opinions”, simply because, as the ole adage goes, “there is honor among thieves”.
“….. so I merely linked to what Oxford says about the interrelatedness between philosophy/logic/mathematics/computer science. “.
HA, most all institutions of higher education have long since morphed into “For Profit Businesses” and they will “sell” you just about any type of degree you wish to pursue.
“Having studied philosophy/logic/statistics and Fortran this all seemed obvious to me“.
Richard, my opinion of philosophy is that it is little more than imaginary “junk science fiction” with a flair of the “supernatural”. And I’m pretty much an expert on logics ….. and statistics don’t interest me in the least because I’m not a gambler. And I studied Fortran for maybe 5 minutes, “C” for a couple hours …… but quickly decided I wanted to be in control of how my firmware/software actually functioned.
I looked up the definition of your word “autodidactic”, which in my opinion, actually applies to everyone, just some more so than others. But “autodidactic” has to do with the acquiring of the “tools” that are prerequisite to one’s applying their nurtured abilities of “logical reasoning” and/or “intelligent deductions”. And I wasn’t asserting anything about non-schooled persons, it was a “statement of fact”. Charles Goodyear, Thomas Edison, etc., etc.
“BTW, the frontal cortex develops well into the early 20′s, not early adolescence as you assert“.
Now Richard, I dun tolt ya that you really shouldn’t be making such brash statements …. about specific entities and/or things that you know very little about. And to prove my “point”, …. and “HA”, lucky for me, …. guess what was just announced in this morning’s NEWS @ur momisugly this link, to wit:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/06/root-causes-dyslexia-unraveled/?intcmp=obnetwork
And you can read my response to that article at this link: http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_news/2013/12/09/21828976-root-causes-of-dyslexia-unraveled-fox-news ….. and in the Public Discussion forum included at the bottom of that linked article.
And before you make any more silly assertions about my learned knowledge of the human brain/mind …. I suggest that you read this commentary that I am the author of and which was specifically written as a “learning aide” for people like yourself, to wit:
http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/04/5408053-a-view-of-how-the-human-mind-works
“The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognize the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not an unhelpful conclusion. In fact, it’s hugely helpful whenever rational technologies like flacking are advocated. Perhaps more so when presented by scientists with warmest credentials. And I’m in agreement with Anthony, who apparently believes this sort of thing gives greens a bad case of hives. Furthermore, it’s not unhelpful when guys like Hansen make a big push for nuclear power, as they often get wide publicity. IMO, nuclear we need it and nuclear could use some good publicity whatever the source. And it’s even more helpful when guys like the co-founder of green peace flips and advocates for sane energy policies.
What is unhelpful is to attack these people personally, especially fellow posters and working scientists such as Mosher. It’s similar to the trolls who show up with the same old tripe every time Monckton presents here. Say whatever you like about their personal backgrounds or credentials, it’s a fact that they are working to move knowledge forward. Unless you can refute the facts or ideas they present you’re just playing school yard bully.
No problem, David B, you can “call me” bout anything ….. except “too late” to enjoy a once cold beer. ha ha
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar
discussion with untrained, opinionated quacks is futile so I’ll ignore you in future
“the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s.” http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html
”
kuhnkat says:
December 9, 2013 at 10:10 am
otropogo,
“NO, the explosions were caused by the failure of the automatic pressure venting mechanism to function as designed, AND
by the failure of the backup manual procedure for venting, ON ALL of REACTORS #1, 2, and 3.
How such identical failures in all of the affected containment vessels could have occurred has never been explained to my knowledge. Is one to conclude that these power plants are not routinely tested in the course of their long working life?”
… I will ignore what you tell us yet, can’t seem to find…”
The fact that something can’t be documented at a moment’s notice should not deter any fairminded person from lending it credence. And I suspect that producing a link or copying the text that I saved to disk would prove equally unpersuasive. If you were interested in the truth instead of merely trashing my post, you would have searched yourself.
“The fact radiation could be measured has little to do with whether it is actually at a level that can cause harm immediately or long term. … [irrelevant rant removed]”
Apparently the Canadian and US governments are in agreement with you on this score, at least when the nuclear radiation originates from nuclear power plants, but NOT when it comes from natural sources of Radon. In the latter instance, any amount is harmful, strangely.
I marvel that such a dyed in the wool “skeptic” would stoop to blindly accept government figures on such a sensitive subject as radioactive pollution, especially given the amount of deception that has been exposed to date in the Fukushima incident.
“The excess heat caused by the meltdowns would have boiled and dissociated all the water in the containment vessels and would have been vented and dissipated with no issue. The fact they continued to pump in water in their vain attempt to cool the melting cores simply provided more water to be dissociated increasing the amount of hydrogen to collect in a building with no ventilation. Whether the valves malfunctioned or not, the hydrogen was released in LARGE amounts into the building.”
Hu? So you’re saying that the identical failures of the automatic and manual activation of the venting system is irrelevant because it wasn’t needed anyway, since the operator shouldn’t have pumped sea water in to cool the reactor core?
Brilliant!
“To sum up yet again, after a 9.0 earthquake, sizable tsunami, and three partial to total core meltdowns there have been NO DEATHS OR ILLNESS FROM RADIATION!!!”
I suggest you start to educate yourself on nuclear safety and the role of government in undermining it by reading the excellent book:
Full Body Burden
Unlike my ill-fated post above, it provides all the references any real skeptic could ask for.
“There HAS been quite a bit of mental illness and suicides from the excessive evacuation enforced by the gubmint. Alarmists and idiot enviros spreading Junk Science are at fault for these deaths and misery that are almost totally unnecessary.”
And where is your evidence for this astonishing pronouncement?
Why do you keep repeating this false statement? Mr. Mosher has a B.A. in Philosophy and English with an extensive career in marketing. If you can call him a working scientist then the term is meaningless and everyone is a “scientist” by simply declaring it and holding no relevant qualifications.
Richard D says:
December 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar
discussion with untrained, opinionated quacks is futile so I’ll ignore you in future
“the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s.”
————–
Richard, and just how many years will it be until you can celebrate your 21st Birthday?