AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (6 comments)

  1. ron imhof

    A teachable moment for America
    Grandfather and his granddaughter setting on a bench together enjoying a Memorial day parade, the grandfather has one arm missing also pinned to his jacket is a silver star metal, on his head is a vfw hat. Both have American flags in there hand. Suddenly the granddaughter looks up at her grandfather with tears in her eyes and said. Grandpop you must have loved your family very much to have gone to war and losing your arm and all for their freedom and happyness. My parents are leaving my brothers and sisters and I with massive debt that we will have to pay for the rest of our lives. Don’t they love me like you loved them??????????????

    1. Luap Leiht

      No. They do not.

  2. Government policy has played a part in this convergance because their policies have closed a lot of coal plants. Using natural gas is fine but if coal is cheaper in some areas, use the coal. No need to put all your eggs in one basket. Depending on the geographic area why not choose the most cost effective between coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro or whatever?

  3. Victor Provenzano

    Yes indeed, “the shale revolution has also significantly reduced carbon emissions as electricity producers have switched from dirty coal to clean, cheap natural gas.” If only the author of this piece lived in the realm of facts rather than that of science fiction. A study recently done at Cornell shows that the net equivalent CO2 emissions from shale gas are already 1.2 times higher than those of coal when the methane that escapes into the air during the shale fracking process is added to the CO2 that is later emitted when the shale gas is burned as a fuel. According to the same study done at Cornell, this figure on net CO2 emissions for shale gas is expected to rise to up to 2 times that of coal by the end of this century as the number of fissures in the bedrock created by the fracking process increases exponentially over time. Not to worry though, Mr. Perry, another study recently published in Nature shows that the current net equivalent CO2 emissions of shale gas are only approximately equal to those of coal rather 1.2 times higher. But who’s counting? “Welcome to the Shale Revolution” of the illiterate & unthinking. Maggie Thatcher, Mr. Perry, called for a treaty on global climate change in the late 1980s & all continental European conservatives are now hard at work reducing CO2 emissions. What is it that makes the American rightwing so irremediably insensible? Is the water you are drinking?

  4. SteveK9

    Plenty of early-warning signs on Fracking. Shale gas is selling well below the price of production. The wells seem to peeter out after a year or two (makes sense given the technology) unless, ‘restimulated’. Starting to look like a bubble, which will be brutal when it pops.

  5. @Mr. Provenzano:

    The Cornell study you refer to do was led by Robert Howarth, a biogeochemist who published his findings in the journal Climate Change. Another Cornell professor, Anthony Calthes, rebutted Howarth’s study in the same journal. Calthes of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences pointed out numerous erroneous assumptions in the Howarth Study, and, that natural gas has a major advantage over coal in terms of green house gas emissions.

    http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120119/NEWS90/120119705

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content