• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Fracking Zone Emits 90% More Methane Than EPA Estimated

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Texas Fracking Zone Emits 90% More Methane Than EPA Estimated | InsideClimate News

A sprawling, aggressive effort to measure the climate footprint of natural gas production has yielded striking results: methane emissions from the Barnett Shale in North Texas are at least 90 percent higher than government estimates. That conclusion comes from a peer-reviewed study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper is the most sweeping study to emerge from the Environmental Defense Fund's $18-million project to quantify methane leaks from the natural gas industry. It was written by 20 co-authors from 13 institutions, including universities, government labs, EDF and private research firms.
 
[FONT=&quot]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2]Authors retract study that found pollution near fracking sites[/h]with 2 comments
The authors of two environmental papers, including one about the effects of fracking on human health, have retracted them after discovering crucial mistakes.
One of the studies reported an increased level of air pollution near gas extraction sites, and the other suggested that 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico contributed to air contamination.
According to the corresponding author of both papers, Kim Anderson at Oregon State University, the journal plans to publish new versions of both papers in the next few days. In the case of the fracking paper, the conclusions have been reversed — the original paper stated pollution levels exceeded limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for lifetime cancer risk, but the corrected data set the risks below EPA levels.
The fracking paper received some media attention when it was released, as it tapped into long-standing concerns about the environmental dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which extracts natural gas from the earth. A press release that accompanied the paper quoted Anderson as warning: Read the rest of this entry »

[/FONT]
 
0.00001 x1.9

Wow. So what?

I did a quick look for the raw numbers, and only saw scary percentages and the misuse of GWP.

Where did you find those numbers, and what are the units?
 
On the other hand, Schwarzenegger said that we must become vegetarian, because livestock burp so much methane.

I'm doing all I can about that by eating as many of them as I can.
 
I did a quick look for the raw numbers, and only saw scary percentages and the misuse of GWP.

Where did you find those numbers, and what are the units?

My point was that the tiny amount of methane that was expected to be released compared to the amount that was. Sod all becomes F.all.
 
Back
Top Bottom