3 ms·

1. Methane disappears very quickly 2. It's very small amounts and it can be captured (and is in some instances) 3. The US reduced emissions while growing ener

1. Methane disappears very quickly 2. It's very small amounts and it can be captured (and is in some instances) 3. The US reduced emissions while growing energy output thanks to nat. gas displacing coal. We don't have to take your word for it, we can see that nat. gas energy production is cleaner than coal, because we have actual data from our transition off of coal to nat. gas. The methane talking point is just that. It's not an actual issue, and you can see it's not from overall numbers. If you truly cared about emissions you'd want the current best solution that drives it down. That would mean displacing coal at all cost. The current best way to do that is nat. gas and fracking. Nuclear isn't built up as a baseline, renewables aren't ready for peak loads, and outsourcing it to someone else only shuffles it around. So... natural gas it is...

lm28469 4y ago
We can also see that fracking is absolutely nasty thanks to the endless amount of studies done on it, but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... Ditching a fossil fuel to another fossil fuel is just perpetuating the problem, it's not solving anything. It's like going from a meth addiction to a cocaine addition, sure cocaine isn't as bad, you'll still be absolutely fucked up in a decade though
- hunterb123 4y ago
  > but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... First off, I'd say total emissions by electricity generation is a great single metric to look at. Second, those studies you didn't even reference were most likely FUD. I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking. But instead of coming up with useless analogies about cocaine and falling back on studies you didn't even reference, please respond to each of my points instead of talking past me. Maybe start with the fact that there are no replacements ready for coal other than nat. gas. I'm all for building up nuclear energy and even battery banks. But currently nothing is available other than nat. gas to take the load that coal has produced. Soo... the best way to reduce emissions is to use nat. gas until a solution is built up and ready. (cough, nuclear, cough) Renewables will most likely never be able to handle the peak load, you need a baseline source, that's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy thanks to their densities. ---- edit ---- @lm28469: You're still not addressing any of my points. Dropping a study and calling it a day is not a conversation. At least pick out a point to defend from it... But here's the cool thing. We don't need to read through your biased studies! We know nat. gas is cleaner than coal and we can see it from reduction of emissions as we transition off of coal to nat. gas. If you want to displace nat. gas as well, support nuclear as the new baseline standard! Or come up with better battery tech! Until then, it's not ready and we need energy so we don't die... so nat. gas it is. Or coal worst case.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    https://www.unco.edu/nhs/biology/about-us/franklin-scott/lab/images/Meng2017.pdf https://www.unco.edu/nhs/biology/about-us/franklin-scott/lab... https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracking-drinking-water-pollution-and-infant-heath https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracki... https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012022/fracking-air-pollution-health-pennsylvania/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012022/fracking-air-pol... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/ Studies you don't like are fake right ? > I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking. Is that supposed to make you sound more truth-worthy ?

lm28469 4y ago

We can also see that fracking is absolutely nasty thanks to the endless amount of studies done on it, but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... Ditching a fossil fuel to another fossil fuel is just perpetuating the problem, it's not solving anything. It's like going from a meth addiction to a cocaine addition, sure cocaine isn't as bad, you'll still be absolutely fucked up in a decade though

hunterb123 4y ago
> but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... First off, I'd say total emissions by electricity generation is a great single metric to look at. Second, those studies you didn't even reference were most likely FUD. I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking. But instead of coming up with useless analogies about cocaine and falling back on studies you didn't even reference, please respond to each of my points instead of talking past me. Maybe start with the fact that there are no replacements ready for coal other than nat. gas. I'm all for building up nuclear energy and even battery banks. But currently nothing is available other than nat. gas to take the load that coal has produced. Soo... the best way to reduce emissions is to use nat. gas until a solution is built up and ready. (cough, nuclear, cough) Renewables will most likely never be able to handle the peak load, you need a baseline source, that's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy thanks to their densities. ---- edit ---- @lm28469: You're still not addressing any of my points. Dropping a study and calling it a day is not a conversation. At least pick out a point to defend from it... But here's the cool thing. We don't need to read through your biased studies! We know nat. gas is cleaner than coal and we can see it from reduction of emissions as we transition off of coal to nat. gas. If you want to displace nat. gas as well, support nuclear as the new baseline standard! Or come up with better battery tech! Until then, it's not ready and we need energy so we don't die... so nat. gas it is. Or coal worst case.
- lm28469 4y ago
  https://www.unco.edu/nhs/biology/about-us/franklin-scott/lab/images/Meng2017.pdf https://www.unco.edu/nhs/biology/about-us/franklin-scott/lab... https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracking-drinking-water-pollution-and-infant-heath https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracki... https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012022/fracking-air-pollution-health-pennsylvania/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012022/fracking-air-pol... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/ Studies you don't like are fake right ? > I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking. Is that supposed to make you sound more truth-worthy ?