I was able to look up some of your sources rebutting the Howarth paper and they are certainly thought-provoking, but they don’t make fracking look very good. Also, a few clarifications need to be made.

The Sierra Club in the United States had a long history of promoting natural gas and was therefore embarrassed by a report showing that it was as bad as coal. I remember reading their objections, which had a lot to do with criticizing coal mining for things other than greenhouse gas emissions, and worries that Howarth’s paper might be a green light for more mountaintop removal. The Sierra Club even financed the study done by Carnegie Mellon that you refer to. There are now revelations that the Sierra Club took $25 million from the natural gas industry between 2007-2010.

In Canada, the Sierra Club endorses and promotes Mr. Howarth’s work:

http://www.meetup.com/Excursions-Sierra-Club-Quebec-Montreal-Excursions/events/48201042/

I haven’t been able to find any reference to critiques from the EIA or the University of Maryland. So, criticizing Mr. Howarth so far are the industry-funded, natural gas-promoting Sierra Club and a paper they commissioned, as well as the critique from Cornell, which is far more serious, and which I’ll address below. I should note though, that the Cornell critique was not available at the time of our last interaction.

On the other hand, it’s clearly not true as you state that “The Howarth paper… has been universally panned and debunked by mainstream science”. On the contrary, it appears to be frequently cited by very reputable scientists.

Going over your specific objections, I should note that while Howarth’s original paper did not look at fugitive emissions from coal, his subsequent paper did.

On the other hand, it was this second paper which used the 20 year time horizon rather than the 100 year time horizon. Rather, it used both, and you’re not right when you say it contradicts the IPCC. The IPCC has both as well, though they often go with the 100 year time horizon when summarizing. Howarth is not the first scientist to suggest that there should be a greater focus on the 20-year time horizon.

In terms of the venting debate, it’s my understanding that the industry agrees that less than 15% of the gas is flared or otherwise burned. So it’s an important omission, but not big enough to completely alter the general thrust of Howarth’s analysis.

Your complaint that Howarth didn’t talk about other pollutants that come from coal I will not address. His paper wasn’t about evaluating the two fuels overall, it was about comparing GHG emissions only. Comparing other things would require a difficult value judgement.

The other complaint that’s brought up in both the Carnegie-Mellon paper and by the Cornell team is that natural gas power plants are more energy efficient than coal plants, so if you look strictly at power generation, the profile for natural gas looks better.

There are two reasons why Howarth’s choice in this respect may be considered reasonable, even if extreme. First, that if we’re serious about coal elimination through fuel switching, then we need to consider thermal uses of coal as well, like Howarth did. Secondly, the efficiency of natural gas is no better than coal when you move to the more efficient district energy systems, which would be the only sensible way to proceed.

Howarth has published a rebuttal to the Cornell critique of his paper. It points out, among other things, that seven independent assessments of fugitive emissions have been performed since his paper was written and while his paper is on the high end of the estimates, the estimates of his critics are absurdly too low:

http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeaarticleFINAL1.pdf

It’s clear that Howarth is pushing the limits of how we evaluate emissions from fracking. And I’ll agree that honest men may come to different conclusions. But it’s also clear to me that his critics are pushing the limits of interpretation in the opposite direction.

There are multiple papers and organizations expressing concern about the GHG impacts of fracking, whether or not it’s quite as bad as coal. For example, here’s a paper that indicates that if BC pursues fracking, then it will fail to meet its emissions targets:

http://aeoliswind.ca/_warehouse/M.Jaccard-ShaleGas.pdf

Keep in mind that the IEA has pointed out that if we continue building infrastructure to burn fossil fuels of any kind, we will close up all the emissions space within a couple of years. The smarter way to approach coal elimination is not with something that could, if you squint, maybe reduce the emissions by half, but rather to focus on ways to virtually eliminate emissions by going to entirely non-emitting renewable sources.

I live in the firm belief that when all facts are presented, two rational people, such as Adriana and Martin, will ultimately find themselves on common ground.

I too live in Nova Scotia, so like Kate I am simply wishing you all the best Adriana in this by-election.

I live in Nova Scotia so I can’t vote in this by-election but I have sent a donation and I do wish you, Adriana, all the best.

I could rebut a number of points in your last post but I will address your references to the Howarth study from Cornell because this perfectly encapsulates my concerns stated above. The Howarth paper (reliance on shale gas is worse for the environment than coal) has been universally panned and debunked by mainstream science since it came out last year – you have to know this. The findings were refuted by the likes of the Sierra Club, the EIA, the University of Maryland, Carnegie Mellon University and perhaps most importantly from Cornell University itself (Cathles et al). You can find their latest paper here:

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/cathles/Natural%20Gas/Response%20to%20Howarth%27s%20Reply%20Distributed%20Feb%2030,%202012.pdf

The numerous errors and omissions this and others papers point out are embarrassing. Among them, Howarth overstates the impact of Methane on warming (contradicts the IPCC), ignores methane emissions from coal production entirely, attributes all reserve loss to venting while ignoring flaring and on-site power generation, I could go on… And this paper doesn’t even broach the issues of nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury, lead, heavy metals and radiation emissions that would be greatly reduced or eliminated entirely by replacing coal power with gas!

I draw this to your attention not just because you challenged me to show a refutation of Howarth’s work but to try and bring some reality back to a very important discussion. My point from the get-go is that there are too many people in the Green movement who are willing to suspend their criticality and common sense in order to find the one voice that will reaffirm a rigid, idealistic view. But even worse, to do so destroys the credibility of the majority who want to deal in facts, win elections and have a seat at the table in order to create compromise, consensus and above all progress.

I am delighted to learn about you from your web site. As others have noted above, your well-informed and respectful approach is very refreshing – and a model I wish were followed by other candidates and elected officials. We need more people like you in Parliament. Since I am not in your riding I cannot vote for you but you certainly have my full support.

Rick

I wish you the very best of luck and hope you get the seat.
From Canmore Alberta.

I hope I come to represent you well in Parliament.

Thaks Ron

1. Natural gas supply

Here’s the first statement you claim to be from “climate zealots”, along with your rebuttal:

Natural gas is a declining resource — an outright lie, natural resources are growing worldwide.

First of all, this statement is far too broad for the discussion we’re having.

If I were to take the statement above completely literally, “natural gas is a declining resource” would have to be correct. By contrast, your counter that “natural resources are growing worldwide” is obviously wrong.

We live on a finite planet and we’re using up virtually every resource (fish, wood, land, clean well water, oil, etc.) faster than it’s being replenished. That’s most obvious when we look at the decline of forests worldwide perhaps, but the rate of overuse is actually greater for the fossil fuels, which are rebuilt on geologic time scales. We’re using thousands of years worth of concentrated energy every year.

It would be more correct to say that the rate of discoveries of natural gas is increasing, and I think this may be what you intended to say. This may be true today, as compared to a year ago, but it’s not a long-term trend. Furthermore, even if it is true today, it is only true because the price of gas now allows us to explore pretty extreme sources of the stuff at unprecedented rates. The general trend is to decline, as you can see by this chart of long-term global natural gas discoveries which peaked in the 1970′s and haven’t been anywhere close for decades.

[Chart: Global giant gas discoveries by decade]

As David Hughes (who is certainly not a climate zealot, but rather a senior researcher with the Geological Survey of Canada for 32 years) points out, between 1991 and 2009, the amount of drilling to find new wells in North America increased by 300% for a gain of 15% in production. So we’re drilling more and more feverishly to get piddling production gains.

Shale gas exacerbates this trend, since shale gas wells have a much faster depletion rate. While conventional gas wells have a depletion rate of about 32% annually, shale gas wells can deplete by up to 80% in the first year.

What I actually said was that conventional natural gas sources in North America are in deep and irrevocable decline, with no appreciable production gains in spite of tremendous efforts being made to find the stuff. That is an undisputed fact, and the reason why we in North America are turning to shale gas and other exotics.

So to clarify, what “climate zealots” like me might say is that “Conventional natural gas wells are in decline in North America, unable to keep up alone with demand. So keeping up with future demand, if it continues, will require greater reliance on shale gas”.

2. Conventional vs shale gas

Now here’s the second statement you pin on “climate zealots”, again with your correction.

Nat gas from shale or tight rocks is different than conventional — totally misleading, same hydrocarbon, differenet geology

Here my problem is that I disagree with your statement that “climate zealots” claim that the gas itself is different. I have never heard any climate activist of any type claim that the gas is fundamentally different if it comes from shale. The problem environmental and climate activists have with shale gas is the production process.

It’s comparable to a distinction between bottled water imported from France and tap water. No environmentalist is saying “Don’t drink Evian because it’s bad water”. They’re saying “Don’t drink Evian because it’s essentially the same as tap water. France can’t be expected to provide drinking water for the planet and it’s crazy to waste energy moving water around uselessly that way”.

So I agree with your “correction” but deny that I (or anyone else I know) made the statement you accuse us of.

3. Shale gas vs coal

Here’s the third statement you accuse “climate zealots” of making, along with your rebuttal:

Shale gas is worse for the environment than coal — another outright lie which no serious scientist would ever support. It wilts under even the most cursory scrutiny.

The production of shale gas releases greenhouse gases equivalent or higher than mountaintop removal coal mining. There are serious analyses that demonstrate this (including peer-reviewed studies), whereas I know of no serious scientific analysis that disputes this. I pointed you to the Howarth study from Cornell. If you have something which disputes that, please point me to it.

Still, I’m not sure a “climate zealot” would make the above statement, because “shale gas is worse for the environment”, is a much broader statement than a simple analysis of its greenhouse gas impacts. Mountaintop removal, uhm, removes whole mountains, causes flooding, spread of nasty toxins, destruction of wildlife and a complete change of local ecosystems. On the other hand, shale gas production has been known to poison local drinking water supplies. I don’t know if anyone has made an overall comparison of the two, nor do I know how you would, since you can’t compare the value of deer habitat against the value of safe drinking water without a value judgement.

So I would not say that shale gas is environmentally worse than coal overall. But I would say that if you’re trying to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and moving off coal to do so, then moving onto shale gas is a bogus direction.

 
I have never advocated quick fixes or silver bullets. Quite the contrary. It is natural gas advocates who imagine it is a quick fix. I have spent a great deal of time taking a sober look into the pros and cons of every type of path forward out of our unsustainable and polluting addictions. I do not think the answers are going to be easy. But we owe it to our children and grandchildren to offer them a livable world at the end of our lives. And that means we can’t just grasp at straws like natural gas (and ethanol and tree-planting offsets and many other interesting notions) and defend them even when the scientific evidence suggests that they are not any better than what they’re replacing.

Best, Adriana

The main thrust of my posts was to counter the deliberate misinformation that zealots in the environmental movement try to put forth about nat gas. The biggest ones being:

1. Natural gas is a declining resource – an outright lie, natural resources are growing worldwide
2. Nat gas from shale or tight rocks is different than conventional – totally misleading, same hydrocarbon, differenet geology
3. Shale gas is worse for the environment than coal – another outright lie which no serious scientist would ever support. It wilts under even the most cursory scrutiny.

My agenda in all of this is to try and steer the environmental debate in this country away from the demagoguery that too many of its leaders espouse and try and focus on practicality and real-world solutions. More than anything, choices that are based on hard science and above all else economics.

Although I am positive Adriana and Greens like her feel they are acting in the best interest of the cause, there is a reason they have performed abysmally in past elections. If Greens are going to get a seat at the table making real impact to legislation they have to offer practical solutions and act in an honest and truthful manner. Distorting and making up facts destroys creditibility and thus, electibility.

Practical solutions are the bridge to solving our environmental issues not frantic doomsaying and irrational hyperbole.

I always tell environmentalists that they must study economics and business. If they can remove themselves from the Ivory Tower and discover how the world’s economies really works they can discover the real solutions to environemntal problems.

So the point here and on countless other issues is, yes natural gas is not the perfect solution for weaning Ontario from coal but it is the best of the lot. The sooner people in our movement discover there are no quick fixes or silver bullets, the better.

I’m sorry, but you are wrong on the bigger picture w/ nat gas. You keep comparing natural gas to coal. We need to get off both of them. While natural gas will suffice for peaker-plants as a bridge, it simply doesn’t make sense to try substitute nat. gas for coal, mainly from the carbon budget needed to prevent catastrophic climate change, but also because there are economic alternatives that we in Ontario can pursue that are better. That’s not to say that nat gas. doesn’t play a role, but there are much better alternatives for both liquid fuel, base load generation, and general reduction of consumption. While hydrocarbons are needed in the near term, your assessment of nat gas. only compares it against coal use and you’re not doing a stand-alone comparison of the cost/benefits of a massive switch to nat. gas. those cost/benefit analyses are out there, but I fear you won’t like what they say.Finally, your blanket condemnation of any alternative that does not include hydrocarbons reveals that you aren’t aware of these alternatives, nor have calculated the carbon budget in which we need to operate within….

He ran in 1999 for the Davenport riding (Ontario Provincial Election) After that, I ran in 2003 as a Green provincial candidate in Mississauga, and in 2004 federally in Mississauga-Brampton South, as a member of the Green party first full 308 candidates slate. Ran provincially again in 2007 and sat out federally in 2008, and now again in Mississauga South!

In fact I think that there was an NDP candidate as well in Brampton in 2003 and another Brazilian Green candidate in 2007 in a south-western Ontario riding… But I can’t recall who exactly…

But I’m happy to see another Green Brazilian! I think that is what matters! Way to go!

Adriana, espero ter o prazer de te conhecer pessoalmente! Acho muito legal que os dois unicos brasileiros nesta eleicao estao unidos na mesma plataforma Verde! Isto sim e’ noticia!

Boa Sorte!

Paulo Simas
Mississauga-South

The Brazilian language media were thrilled to discover me, believing I was the first Brazilian-Canadian candidate for Parliament. May I forward your info to them?

Thanks, Adriana