Is Natural Gas A Free-Market Solution to CO2 Emissions?

From the AP: We have gotten lucky. The cheap price of natural gas has resulted in a free-market-caused reduction in CO2 emissions for the US:

"the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels."

...

"The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas."

This has surprised a number of climate scientists, including Michael Mann

"Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming."

...

"Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified."

However, this is not a long term solution:

"while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood."

...

" leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas."

"Environmentalists say that the fluids [from hydraulic fracturing] can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage"

And what the free market gives, it can also take away:

"Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling. Moreover, changes in the marketplace - a boom in the economy, a fall in coal prices, a rise in natural gas - could stall or even reverse the shift. For example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose in 2010 before falling again last year."

...

"Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.

"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said."

So we should be skeptical the market will ultimately provide a solution to the issue of harmful emissions. This switch was merely luck. People aren't switching to natural gas because it is cleaner. They are doing it because it is cheaper. And it does not necessarily have to be the case the cheapest source of energy is also the cleanest. And natural gas may also be a double edged sword on the road to better renewable energies:

""Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website."

However, natural gas may still an excellent short term solution to the problem:

"Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution."

...

"Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog."

...

"Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent."

...

"Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning."

In addition, clean and/or renewable energies face fundamental problems if they want to be the sole provideers of energy in the US. It isn't always windy. It isn't always sunny. What can we do about nuclear waste? We need something that will fill in the gaps where clean and/or renewable energies fail. Natural gas my be that fill.

For a more thorough analysis, see Brad Plumer's post on Ezra Klein's WONKBLOG.

Is the left really as anti-science as the right?

It is no secret that conservative mainstream political discourse includes quite a bit of anti-science rhetoric. However, is that also true on the left? Although there are plenty of liberal cases of anti-science, I have a few questions about any one of them:

1. Do a significant number of liberals support it?
2. Is it endorsed by liberal politicians?
3. Is it even part of popular political discourse on the left?

As Chris Mooney points out, the answer to all three of these questions seems to be no. A few things to note about this article. Chris Mooney points out a few examples of anti-science on the left that could potentially be candidates for "Yes" answers to these questions:

2) Nuclear power–this is a pretty good one, because for a long time the left really was anti-nuclear. However, I don’t think that is the case today, and in fact, President Obama’s administration is pretty much pro-nuclear. And again, the author makes no case that nuke opponents are factually wrong about, say, the risk of low-dose radiation. (Although some of them are.)

Conservatives are no strangers to anti-science about nuclear power. However their false statements generally come from the other extreme.

3) Vaccines–polling data suggests that distrust of vaccines is rather bipartisan, but I actually agree with the author in suspecting those data aren’t that good and that this is more of a left wing thing. But of course, liberal journalists like myself, and liberal commentators, have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse. We’ve held our own accountable and really, you cannot defend this view any more without being pilloried.

I'm surprised Chris Mooney didn't point to his recent work on Bachmann's false allegations against the Gardasil vaccine. Make no mistake. Anti-vaxers are alive and well in the mainstream right.

Weely Roundup - Eyewitness Testimony, Strong Currency Problems, Fair Taxes, and Portal-Mario (4/4/11-9/10/11)

Welcome to another edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts from this last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I consider to be the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.

Eyewitness testimony is UNreliable

NPR: "Reliability Of Eyewitness Testimony Under Scrutiny":
Yet more evidence of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It turns out that, contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, witness certainty can be a very good indicator of the unreliability of an individuals eyewitness testimony.
Just how aware are you?
More on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony


Damn that economy!
What seems to be the biggest issue of the day? First Switzerland showed us that having a strong currency can actually make you quite weak. Paul Krugman complained about the changing political discussion in Washington. David Brooks challenged some uses government spending meant to "fix the economy." Finally, I took a look at a few articles dealing with the economic plans of both Obama and Romney.

NPR: "Switzerland: Too Strong For Its Own Good":
Conservatives often speak of the evils of inflation, mainly accusing inflation of destroying people's savings. However, there is another side to inflation. Harvard Economist Ken Rogoff has previously pointed out that inflation can ease the burden of household debt, a major factor in our current recession/contraction. Now Switzerland is showing the world that a strong currency can also hurt a country by reducing demand for exports. In the US this would surely exacerbate our already large trade deficit as well as reduce demand for US products overseas, which is currently around one tenth of our GDP (exports are nearly half of Swiss GDP).

Skeptoid: "Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and Other Radio Bogeymen":
Brian Dunning takes on the claim that radio waves can be harmful. As the World Health Organization classifies them, one should take an equal amount of precaution with coffee and the earth's gravitational field (good luck on that one!)

Paul Krugman: "The Fatal Distraction":
Krugman makes the case he's been making on his blog for quite some time, only now in a concise manner in an op-ed. The focus on Austerity (in the short term) is demonstrably crippling the economy. Conservative theories about regulation and tax fears are unfounded. Consumer demand is down and savings are up. How much more evidence to they need?
Krugman points out where he thinks the stimulus was inadequate, also noting the dramatic increase in consumer savings.
Krugman also shows that there is currently a de facto policy of austerity.

David Brooks "Where The Jobs Aren't":
David Brooks challenges the perceived efficiency of the government attempting to directly create private sector jobs. I do not agree with much of what he says. However it is an interesting read.
On the success of renewable energy
On the calculations of cost per job analysis of government spending on jobs
On The effectiveness of capital gains taxes
The overall effectiveness of government spending

Eric Levine: "Obama versus Romney on Jobs":

"Recently, both Obama and Romney have basically given what may turn out to be competing economic plans in 2012 (As of the date of this post, I have yet to see a serious economic plan from Rick Perry). Obama released his plan during a speech on Thursday night (9-8-11). Mitt Romney has already released his plan on his website. This post is a collection of a few articles on those plans."

Fodder for climate skeptics
Of course I cannot go a week without posting at least a few articles on climate change. NASA explained a dip in sea level rise that will surely show up on a few climate skeptic blogs. I summarized the ongoing controversy over the Spencer paper. Finally, Skeptical Science released a booklet detailing an often uncovered effect of climate change.

NASA: "NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas":
NASA comments on the recent temporary decrease in global sea levels. It is due to La Nina, not due to the "end of global warming."

"while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe... So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean... [Sea] level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up."

Skeptical science also explains the situation.

Eric Levine: "Climate Change "Skeptics" Climax Too Early... Again":

"Yet another story of climate change "skeptics" getting excited about something that turns out to be nothing. Here is a summary of the latest story in the ongoing novel of climate-change-skeptic-sensationalism..."

Skeptical Science: "OA not OK: Booklet available":
With all the media attention given to global warming, we often forget that more dangers exist from climate change other than just rising temperatures.

"In July and August 2011 we posted a long series to introduce the chemistry of ocean acidification. We have lightly edited and compiled the posts into a booklet."

Political differences abound
Politics! Dear Gawd when will it stop! Ezra Klein took a look at a possible case of Republican hypocrisy. Gregory Mankiw cleared up a liberal misconception about taxes and the rich. I reviewed Paul Krugman's answer to Barry Goldwater's book. Politifact took a look at tax loopholes for outsourcing. Finally, Jed Graham covered an "ingenious" plan to fix Social Security.

Ezra Klein: "Why did the GOP turn against stimulus? Ask a psychologist.":

"The bottom line is this: Until quite recently, both parties supported the idea that you combat bad economies with stimulus spending. Now, during an extremely bad economy, the Republican Party has completely abandoned that position."

Greg Mankiw: "Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’ ": Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw points out that, although some billionaires like Warren Buffet can write their way out of a hefty dose of taxes, most millionaires still pay a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes (30%+) than do most Americans. Whether or not this is fair is mostly a philosophical question. Politifact also points out that the "Warren Buffet" phenomena only really applies to the "mega rich." The highest income earners still pay the lion's share of taxes. David Frum also points out that a much better "sacrifice" for the rich to make would be supporting inflation as a method to help the economy recover.

Eric Levine: "Book Review: Krugman's Rallying Cry to Liberals":

I just finished Paul Krugman's 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal. I actually liked this book much more than I initially expected. It is a very entertaining and mostly easy read (I actually listened to the audible audio book). Paul Krugman details America's transition from the "Long Gilded Age" (pre-New Deal) to the "Great Contraction" (post New Deal til 1980s) when America's income distribution became more egalitarian. He then details the switch back, starting in the late 1970s, when the top income earners saw large gains in real income while mid and lower income earners saw only modest gains, if any at all. This was due primarily to the growth of "Movement Conservatism." He then makes the case that it is now (back in 2007) possible to once again to work towards closing the income gap.

Politifact: "Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for outsourcing?":

"The SEIU is correct that Republicans did fight against Democratic plans to close tax loopholes on multinational corporations.... The link between the multinationals' tax status and their outsourcing of jobs is not direct, and that's an important distinction."

Jed Graham: "AARP Sees ‘A Better Way To Approach (Social Security) Benefit Changes’":
The AARP has long been thought of as the group that opposes practically every proposed solution to the problems of Social Security. This is mainly due to the fact that they do not want any changes to hit current retirees. It is also due to the fact that most of these plans also "cut the safety net where it needs to be strongest — in very old age." However, John Rother of the AARP has now embraced a plan that should help fix the problems with social security, as well as increase worker efficiency.


Can they really do that?!
So long as they don't sell it for money..

kottke: "A Super Mario Bros version of Portal?!":
Yes, this is an actual game being developed - it is not a mod of any existing one.

Climate Change "Skeptics" Climax Too Early... Again

Yet another story of climate change "skeptics" getting excited about something that turns out to be nothing. Here is a summary of the latest story in the ongoing novel of climate-change-skeptic-sensationalism:

1. Climate Change "skeptics" manage to get a paper (Spencer & Braswell [2011]) into a peer-reviewed journal.
2. The media touts the paper as a major challenge to Climate Change, despite the fact it's one paper among many opposing papers.
3. The paper then turns out to be highly flawed.
4. Then the editor of said peer-reviewed journal resigns.
5. Finally, another paper (Dessler 2011) is published in another peer reviewed journal debunking the "skeptic's" paper, as well as a few notable arguments from climate change "skeptics" in general.
6. Update 9/8/11: "Skeptics" have responded by creating conspiracy theories as to why Dessler's paper was published so fast. Could it be that the Spencer's paper merely contained popular climate myths that climate scientists have already debunked (see #5)? No, it is much easier for climate "skeptics" to resort to their favorite over-used conspiracy meme. Once again the old conspiracy adage hold true: "Any evidence against a conspiracy is evidence for a conspiracy!" 
7. Update 9/22/11: The journal in question, Remote Sensing, has published a commentary on Spencer's paper, citing a few criticisms also noted by Dessler, including the fact that the model used by Spencer was too simple.

I'll update this page as the story continues.