Global Warming is Real - The Natural Gas Industry Says It Is.

[Dryson]

Global Warming is real - Big Natural Gas Says So.

How do we counter Trump's Bullsh*t rampage?

This is one effect of Global Warming?

How do we counter Trump's Bullsh*t rampage?

With corporate back up.

Take for example global warming and the deniers that Trump is putting into place.

According to Pipeline Connections Fall 2016

Drill Bits - Why Shale Continues To Be A Success Story Despite Low Gas Prices

Second column, second paragraph....the Mid Atlantic region will meets its Clean Power Plan mandates by doing nothing.

Clean power mandates are laws meant to create energy,such as natural gas, that do not impact the environment as much. If Global Warming wasn't real then mandates would not exist to ensure clean energy. Coal is is dirty energy as are other fossil fuels which Trump promised to protect only to get their vote and no other reason.

Oil and the gasoline produced from oil is also going away because of the availability of natural gas from which hydrogen is made from. Hydrogen, another clean energy is used in the fuel cells of cars made by Honda and Toyota that after tax credits sell for around $40,000 with a cell life of over 20,000 hours or 100,000 miles before being changed.

Once again if there wasn't any issue with Global Warming then the background projects being funded by natural gas to replace oil based gasoline products would not be taking place.

Oil itself is becoming out dated as well as ethane is being used to replace oil based production of polyethylene which is a primary ingredient for the making of most if not all plastics.

So all at once shale is solving some of the U.S. most pressing economic problems and ENVIRONMENTAL, their it is again, Global Warming, problems.

Shale is reaching its carbon reduction goals, carbon by the way promotes global warming when introduced into the environment, as well as creating jobs.

Donald Trump and his Cabinet are but 5 or 10 people.

This.....is Utica Shale.....you are wrong Donald Trump.


Trump has decided to put U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a sixth-term Republican from Washington State who is a climate change denier and an ardent opponent of regulations for greenhouse gas emissions, as the Secretary of the Interior.

She will be in charge of all drilling and wind generation projects and is against any effort that protect public lands from her efforts to create jobs in the oil drilling industry.

She rates 4 out of 100 on the League of Conservation's scorecard.

She has opposed the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as an air pollutant....she therefore acknowledges that the greenhouse gases are real and in fact promote Global Warming.

She has also voted against tax credits for renewable electricity meaning that she is a use it and throw it away in a land fill trash bag lady. Landfills also create greenhouse gases that further promote global warming.

She is a narcissist like Trump is that does not study anything and only plays to the stupid of the country who are too dumb or fearful to know the truth.

http://www.livescience.com/57166-trump-picks-climate-denier-for-interior.html

 

[MacLeod]

The question climate change deniers don't like to answer is What if you are wrong?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The question climate change deniers don't like to answer is What if you are wrong?

Nah, their answer is, "It doesn't matter, it's an engineering problem and we will adapt."

 

[marillion]

Speaking as someone who has spent his career in the environmental (forest and watershed health) and energy fields, I feel I might have some perspective on this. I am neither a Trump supporter or a climate change denier.

Natural gas is cheap, yes.. The Natural Gas Industry says global warming is real because they stand to profit by it. Now, whether it's real or not, isn't the question. Global warming, in the terms that Al Gore used, is highly up for debate. Climate change, which is a better, truer way to look at it, isn't. What is also up for debate is how much of an impact humans have on it. That's just the way it is.. Both sides have their fanatics. It's up to those of us in the middle to sort it out.

Gas is a solid, dependable energy source, as is coal. Coal, by today's standards of environmental impact is nowhere near what it used to be. Sadly, federal restrictions and environmental interest groups have made it nearly impossible for new coal fired plants to be built, thus forcing owners to spend millions upon millions of customer dollars to retrofit the plants with state of the art emissions controls and partial shutdowns to meet haze requirements and Clean Air Act standards. If those millions could be spent on building new, high tech plants, the cleanliness of coal burning would be increased even more and the backbone of many state and local economies would be more secure for years to come.

Wind and solar are up and coming now, thanks to vast improvements in technology. Massive solar farms and turbine fields dot the landscapes here in New Mexico and across much of the United States. However, these renewables don't come cheap and are not without their own environmental impacts. Wildlife impact studies show these two industries kill thousands of birds annually. Aesthetically speaking, many feel they are a blight on the landscape to the scale of coal mines. At least coal mining companies must adhere to strict reclamation standards and these days, the use of geo-fluvial reclamation techniques so closely mirror naturally occurring landscapes that once completed, you'd never know a mine even existed on those spots. The trick is to spend the money to go back and re-reclaim mined areas that closed decades ago and now show signs of degradation and erosion.

The truth is that no energy is truly "clean" when it comes to collection, transmission and distribution. What is important is that we fight to maintain or enhance environmental standards and reclamation requirements so that what we put back is as good or even better than it was before the land was disturbed. Increasing investment in technology will lessen the impact that resource recovery (coal, gas, wind, solar, water) has upon the landscape and vastly reduce emissions and chemicals released as a result, as is currently being done here in New Mexico at two coal-fired plants in the northwest part of the state. Improvements there have cut down coal and water requirements by more than half and our sulfur and CO2 emissions have dropped to miniscule amounts. Wildfires across the west (and now the east) produce far more concentrated amounts of CO2 than these plants ever will. And while CO2 is actually good for the environment, the resulting damage caused by these wildfires will be irreparable.

 

[cgervasi]

Nah, their answer is, "It doesn't matter, it's an engineering problem and we will adapt."

There's no question that current evidence shows human activities cause global warming. The controversy is false. As for the the fix, I think they're right that it will be an engineering problem. Reducing emissions is all we have now, but it seems like a drop in the bucket if we want the world to keep supporting billions of people living affluent modern lives. The lack of a known solution is what makes people want to bury their heads in the sand.