The climate threat of methane gas expansion is growing, and the public remains largely unaware — in part because of misinformation and misleading terminology.
Here's the situation in Canada: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/18/analysis/canadas-methane-leaks-underreported-and-overwhelming
This is beyond frightening.
Yes to the research into legitimacy of the Biden Administration’s national security strategy. How is investment in that over wind or other strategies justified beyond fear?
A big "YES!" to your query about digging into Biden Administration claims about national security and methane exports! -- A Subscriber
In terms of policy changes, the core issue is our pay-to-play system of government. The fossils have billions to spend on bribery specialists (aka "lobbyists") who make damn sure our government doesn't get too carried away with curbing their extravagant profits, or informing the public of the many ways they are distorting public perception.
If we really want to alter the direction of our energy policies, we need to re-set the bone and stop with these band-aids. It's very difficult for us commoners to go up against the bankroll that the fossils have backing them. And with apologies to the "Can you send just $3 today to help stop this travesty?" crowd, I seriously doubt that sending money to a politician is the best way to get money out of politics.
I am interested in this “national security” angle, whether tied to government policy, misleading industry campaigns, or xenophobia. So yes, I’d much appreciate further exploration of this subject.
I'm sorry, was I not civil to someone who is spewing dangerous and destructive untruths? As a teacher, I was never civil to someone who was beating up on someone else. I'm sorry that you're coming so late to the Denial Party that you missed my now decades of being civil to deniers. I'm sick and tired of it. Your denial of the global biospheric breakdown happening before your very eyes is tedious and tiresome, completely lacking in compassion and empathy — and deadly.
<br>Do you know why so many paid professional deniers are physicists or geologists (my gawd, the geophysicists are the absolute worst because of who pays their bills) or engineers? Because those are ecologically illiterate fields of science. Perhaps that explains why so many businesspeople are deniers, too.
<br>If you want to worry about the politicization of science, look no further than the paid, professional climate science / climate emergency deniers who conflate climate science with their (overlords') political and economic ideologies (or "religious positioning" if you prefer) — ideologies that, at every turn, value money, profit, greed and power over life, health, well-being, vitality, and survival of our species and other life forms on this precious planet. For heaven's sake, man, fossil fuel air pollution is already killing 10 million of their customers every year! What kind of business model is that?????? You have merely fallen into their sciencey-sounding web of obfuscation, cherrypicking, deceit and downright made-up sh!t — instead of going to the peer-reviewed published scientific research of actual climate scientists.
<br>I'll tell you what. You convince fossil fuel corporations to stop accepting corporate welfare to the tune of $7 trillion per year in direct and especially indirect subsidies, and then let's talk. BTW, I'm sorry you're not amongst the paid deniers, but I never meant to include you in that group. You O consider an amateur armchair denier.
<br> One last thing. I don't know why you're fighting Net-Zero when it was specifically designed to allow your overlords to keep spewing GHGs while profiting from destroying the future. The rest of us know we have to get to virtual-zero carbon emissions or else all the feedbacks (already kicking in) will push us into an uninhabitable Earth. Oh, what happens if I'm wrong? We'll have created a more inhabitable (albeit yes, less industrialized ... get used to it) Earth. What happens if you're wrong? The Sixth Mass Extinction — already underway — includes the extinguishing of the human species. That's a risk I'd prefer we not take. BO
What can individual climate activists do about methane gas? I'm part of two SF Bay Area climate NVDA groups, and out here our focus tends to be Wells Fargo (since their HQ is in SF)'s financing of ff extraction, production and transportation, and Chevron (local oil refinery has caused decades of serious health issues in nearby Richmond, CA in addition to being a major ff company). Is there a contact list I can join to be notified when it's time to make calls in support of local or national legislation on methane gas, or are there groups I can join remotely to support movement on this issue?
It's hard to fight greed, corruption, stupidity and apathy. They are all epidemic in this country. No one cares about the real dangers being experienced by our planet. POTUS and his staff should know better...so I say more writing about that...report on the people and institutions that can truly shape an energy program that saves this planet. Great article and...rebrand NG as Methane!
I am game if you want to go down the rabbit hole of 'national security'. Good luck and stay out of trouble. A someone who knows a little bit about how the U.S. government vehementely defends its national security, you need to watch your back if you start poking around in dark corners.
I recently 'switched' to a so called green energy gas offered by my local provider over natural gas and I have mixed feelings so far. I notice that the BTUH is lower than natural gas and it is more expensive as they claim it costs more to manufacture and distribute it. I wonder just how green it is as they wouldn't tell me what the name of the gas is.
Better late than never. I was an HVAC guy, and always lived in cold places, so a lot of time in my life has involved gas heat, gas costs, clean gas, dirty gas, cheap gas, expensive gas, fossil gas, methane gas, un-natural gas. Oh yeah, living in county now with 13000 gas wells.
Some podcast a year ago was discussing careers for kids who wanted climate impact. Lots about journalism, PR, lawyering... I say become, or organize, HVAC engineers to just refuse to put gas in new construction. The question can't be "should we electrify our heating," but "how best to electrify/minimize our heating." Help stop the millions of climate hand grenades of demand, and then we won't need the climate bomb supply projects.
Right now advocating, along with a few others here, for a local replacement swimming pool to be heated with efficient heat pumps instead of fossil methane. But despite signing onto a dozen or so "Climate Action Plans" over years, a lot of local staff and civic leaders can't get past years of "clean, cheap, natural gas." We did have many years where our electric came mostly from coal, but that's behind us and we actually have an electric utility with firm plans for 70% renewables & max 30% backup gas in 2030.
Supposedly the town requested "net zero" but the design team laughed and just proposed some photogenic panels to "offset" some of the heat-trapping GHG pollution from pool boilers. They came up with a strawman list of alternatives inc. inefficient resistance heat and million dollar heat pumps on a $9M project. So basically doing my old job of energy efficiency analyst for free for this project, along with attempting to galvanize local support when I'm the guy someone said was a "coalition of one." We'll see how it goes. If it goes poorly, maybe I'll finally get into the protest thing. Glue my head to the gas pipe in the middle of construction.
I could go on about this "Third Way" and "Arsenal of Clean Energy" jive inside the beltway, but that's just sad. Domestically, what this has led to is neglect of support for wind and solar, and prioritizing every other scheme to "eliminate the hard to abate emissions" or "provide baseload" when we aren't even doing a very good job of "abating" the easy emissions. America being "exceptional."
This old project was "exceptional." 50 miles from here as the crow flies. Nuclear gas?
Not very long ago the UK had hundreds of coal mines and about 50 coak fired power stations.
The pollution from these was enormous all the buildings were dirty throughout the whole country lots of smog most of the time and lots of chest illnesses.
It was decided that we would replace the coal with a mixture of wind power solar power and natural gas.
Eventually we will use wind power we already have the world's four largest offshore wind farms.
And are building even bigger ones.
We got the natural gas half from our own gas Fields oither half mainly from the middle East and Africa and Norway.
We didn't get any from Russia but most of Europe got huge amounts.
So when the war started Britain asked America if they could supply lots of extra gas that we could then send over to the continent either as gas itself or we could convert it into electricity.
This has worked incredibly well and Russia supplies hardly any gas to Europe yet we have a plentiful supply.
However much of Europe is dependent on coal and wishes to switch over to the much less polluting and climate warming natural gas.
Together with the large amount of gas coming to Britain much of the new gas from America will go to protect Europe as Russia is totally unreliable as a supplier.
So your article unfortunately is completely wrong natural gas is much less polluting than coal we can only get it from your major enemy together with some small fields in Norway and Britain.
To shut down Europe's remaining huge coal Fields and coal power stations we need all that natural gas that is going to be exported from America.
I am astonished that as supposedly specialist in this area you are so ignorant of the real facts.
I suggest you do some research on Europe's and Britains energy situation as it is at the moment.
We vitally need those terminals and lots of them to be completed as quickly as possible.
And America should be not as far behind in developing offshore wind power as it is behind just about every European country that borders the sea and that is many.