I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[China]

 

any realistic reason to believe large quakes are likely to result from man's activity?

 

So is your position that it is OK because the quakes are "minor"?

 

Any realistic reason to believe that minor quakes are unlikely to result in unintended adverse effects?

[PeterMP]

can you change the past if it was the major source?

 

I doubt your theory since the present(with more wells) does not indicate it.

 

 

any realistic reason to believe large quakes are likely to result from man's activity?

 

Well, I can't change the past, but I don't think it matters.  Let's compare it to weight gains and eating.

 

Let's say, I increase the amount of candy I eat, and as I increase the amount of candy that I eat, I gain weight.  Then I stop increasing the amount I eat and my weight stops going up for a while (I don't take it back to what it was before the weight gain, but I stop increasing it).

 

Then I change my behavior in some other way, and my weight starts going up again.  Now, if I want to get back to my very original weight (before the initial increase), then it makes sense to go back to the original amount of candy I was eating.

 

You seem to be arguing that the initial weight gain and increase in candy the person ate has nothing to do with their current weight.

 

If the person (in the present) changes their candy eating habits to what it is was before the initial weight gain, they would still have gone through the initial weight gain (in the past), but if they go back to the original amount of candy they were eating, there is a good chance, they'll lose weight.

 

Do I have any evidence?  No, BUT there was no REAL evidence that it was going to cause earthquakes in the first place, and after the earthquake activity increased, ti was originally denied that it was tied to the fossil fuel industry.

 

Do you have any evidence they AREN'T going to get worse?

 

There are reasons to believe it MIGHT get worse.  It isn't uncommon for things to get worse as a function of time.  If some activity causes a problem and you don't actively reverse the effects of the activity, it isn't uncommon over time for the problem to get worse.

 

The other thing is in a lot of places, they are still doing it.  More of an activity that causes a problem, tends to make a problem worse.

 

But I have a great idea.  Let's slow down and actually study the situation and figure out if it is going to make the problem worse.

 

AND my plan would have PREVENTED the mess in the first place.

 

In 1980 before waste water injection really started, I would have told you that I had no real evidence that waste water injection would have caused earthquakes, but BEFORE we start doing it why we don't take our time and study what waste water injection does.

 

Your solution is, well there is no evidence so let's rush in.

 

And your solution results in people owning homes that they don't want, but can't sell.

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

Well, I can't change the past, but I don't think it matters.  Let's compare it to weight gains and eating.

 

 

 

what if you are assigning celery the impact of candy? 

 

ya need to begin with explaining why thermogenic methane releases would have been higher than the present when we have more drilling and wells 

 

the wastewater injection has been done safely for ages and excess is being addressed.

 

 

So is your position that it is OK because the quakes are "minor"?

 

Any realistic reason to believe that minor quakes are unlikely to result in unintended adverse effects?

 

Yes, quakes below the level of a large truck driving by are OK 

 

They could activate a fault, or they could lessen the impact of a larger quake .....or signal aliens..

[China]

what if you are assigning celery the impact of candy? 

 

ya need to begin with explaining why thermogenic methane releases would have been higher than the present when we have more drilling and wells 

 

the wastewater injection has been done safely for ages and excess is being addressed.

 

 

 

Yes, quakes below the level of a large truck driving by are OK 

 

They could activate a fault, or they could lessen the impact of a larger quake .....or signal aliens..

 

Well, since some have been as high as 3.0 which has an energy equivalent of the Oklahoma City bombing, you must be against it.  

[twa]

 

Well, since some have been as high as 3.0 which has an energy equivalent of the Oklahoma City bombing, you must be against it.  

 

I already told you how to reduce the intensity and events(and it is being done), btw a 3.0 ain't barely noticeable even near the source.  

 

energy equivalent is a rather poor measure since the location is way underground, simply fear instead of science 

 

kinda like blaming fracking for earthquakes 

[PeterMP]

what if you are assigning celery the impact of candy? 

 

ya need to begin with explaining why thermogenic methane releases would have been higher than the present when we have more drilling and wells 

 

the wastewater injection has been done safely for ages and excess is being addressed.

 

 

 

Yes, quakes below the level of a large truck driving by are OK 

 

They could activate a fault, or they could lessen the impact of a larger quake .....or signal aliens..

 

 

Actually, I don't,  I could just as easily contend their result about the current methane increase is wrong and that it is still largely driven by the fossil fuel industry.

 

You are only looking at it from one direction and therefore looking only to dismiss one result.  We could equally say that we have to start explaining what has changed in agriculture that has caused in an increase in methane production now.

 

But that's not how things work if you are being intellectually honest.  You don't get to say I like this result from their work, but not this other result so I'm going to keep the one that I like (that fossil fuels aren't the main driver of the current methane increase), but throw out the one that I don't like (that they were a main driver of the previous methane increase).

 

And if one part of their result is garbage, considering they are using the same methods through out, then likely all of their results are garbage and we are back where we started before this paper was published.

 

Now, even ignoring your inability to actually address the answer from an intellectually honest stand point, I think we can address what's happened and your comments indicate a basic level of misunderstanding.

 

First, they are looking at global methane levels.  So the "we" in your statement has to be the world.  From there, I'm not sure we have more drilling.  Second, the methane production isn't tied to active waste water injection in many cases.  In fact, inactive wells have been found to leak small amounts of methane.

 

From there, then what could have happened:

 

1.  Oil consumption leveled off and even dropped.  That would suggest less active drilling and so likely less methane production (now oil consumption has started to increase some so it'll be interesting to see if you come back in 10 years is there then an indication of increases in methane from the fossil fuel industry.

 

 

2.  Newer techniques/technology reduce methane leakage.  From an industry stand point, methane leakage is actually a waste.  That's a loss resource and loss money, and if methane is escaping that means a reduction of pressure to help drive oil out.  At some level, the industry, independent of climate change and regulations, has an incentive to minimize methane leakage.

 

(Clearly, the incentive is not enough to completely prevent methane leakage as I've already said, nobody doubts that methane is leaking from oil wells.)

 

3. Coupled with pressure from various governments methane leakage has been decreased:

 

"The EPA and a few states have already reduced the oil and gas industry’s U.S. gross methane emissions by approximately 20 percent through a combination of voluntary programs, such as Natural Gas STAR and regulations."

 

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/Leaking-Profits-FS.pdf

 

So, given the combination of things (reduced oil consumption, the economics of methane leakage coupled with improvements in technology and techniques, and government actions), it isn't really surprising that methane leakage from the fossil fuel industry globally has been stagnant and maybe have even decreased slightly.

 

On earthquakes, the fact of the matter is that they are strong enough to cause structural damage to buildings.  The fossil fuel industry has fought to prevent home owners from suing them for related damages, and it looks like they are going to lose that round and people will at least be able to bring suits.

 

And there is no doubt that their home values have under gone significant decreases.

 

Waste water injection has been practiced safely for years, if you ignore the earthquakes and the evidence of waste water injection contaminating drinking water.

 

https://www.earthworksaction.org/media/detail/ut_study_shows_widespread_groundwater_pollution_from_fracking_chemicals#.VuW5e1srLDf

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

Should I believe the water study you cited or the EPA? 

 

as far as methane from drilling the study I referenced clearly shows we are doing well while increasing domestic supply.(I've said for ages we do it better and cleaner and benefit the US and allies)

 

As far as earthquakes it is being addressed properly and is a rather localized issue....but I do agree OK drug their feet on the matter.

 

Methane is leaking all around us, far better to drill and reduce pressure on seeps and make use of it.

[PeterMP]

Should I believe the water study you cited or the EPA? 

 

as far as methane from drilling the study I referenced clearly shows we are doing well while increasing domestic supply.(I've said for ages we do it better and cleaner and benefit the US and allies)

 

As far as earthquakes it is being addressed properly and is a rather localized issue....but I do agree OK drug their feet on the matter.

 

Methane is leaking all around us, far better to drill and reduce pressure on seeps and make use of it.

 

What EPA study are you talking about?  The one that has as one of its conclusions:

 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

 

"Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells."

 

And:

 

"This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies"

 

Oh wait, you mean the fossil fuel industry rushed into using a new technique without doing studies that would allow us to determine what the effects of the new technique are?

 

I'm shocked.

 

And after having rushed into using the new technique they nor the federal government are conducting long term systematic studies to understand the impact of the use of the new technique?

 

Again, I'm shocked.

 

I'm completely blown away.

 

The two studies aren't actually in conflict with one another.

 

We'll see what happens with earthquakes.

 

But clearly, the methane even under pressure is more likely to stay in unless it is given an easy way out, which drilling does.

 

The fact that it is under pressure indicates an inability to escape.  Relieving pressure just means the thing can escape.

[twa]

drilling a hole down to collect the gas works?....I'd have never guessed

 

[PeterMP]

drilling a hole down to collect the gas works?....I'd have never guessed

 

 

Sure, but when drilling for oil, that's generally not what the fossil fuel industry does.  They actually put things into the wells to push things out without worrying too much about the methane that is coming it out too.

 

And then historically, they've just let most of the methane simply escape into the atmosphere and/or burned it off (which just converts it into CO2).

 

If the fossil fuel industry wants to drill a hole down and collect the methane when drilling for oil, that's great.

 

And again, their complaints about EPA regulations would go away.

 

But in a lot of cases, they don't want to do that, which is why we are in this situation, and the paper that you quoted to start the conversation got the attention that it did.

 

If we didn't know the fossil fuel industry was letting relatively large amounts of methane to quickly and easily escape, the paper that you started this conversation with wouldn't be a big deal.

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

that paper said they were not now, despite a record number of wells

[PeterMP]

that paper said they were not now, despite a record number of wells

 

That's not what the paper said.  The paper that they weren't a significant part of the recent increase in methane in the atmosphere.

 

If I started eating too much candy 20 years ago, but my candy eating stabialized 5 years ago, my eating candy might not be tied to RECENT weight gains.

 

That doesn't mean that I'm not over weight partly because I eat too much candy and that eating taking my candy eating level back to what it was 21 years ago (before the increase started) wouldn't help me lose weight.

 

Methane production from oil wells isn't going up.  That doesn't mean we couldn't take (more) steps to reduce methane escaping from oil wells into the atmosphere.

 

Also the paper didn't say anything about the number of oil wells.  Globally are there fewer oil wells?

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

no globally there are more than ever

 

maybe ya need to focus on the bio methane that is increasing 

[PeterMP]

no globally there are more than ever

 

maybe ya need to focus on the bio methane that is increasing 

 

Again, oil production hasn't gone up too much and extraction technology has gotten better.  It would seem odd to me that we'd need more wells to bring up not much more (if any more) oil with better technology.

 

I'm not even sure the absolute number of wells even matters much.  It seems to me that the amount of production would be the number one factor.

 

It is hard to do much about biomethane, and biomethane production is likely only going to go up as temperatures increase.

 

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/warmer-freshwater-emits-more-methane/

 

It is clearly going to be much easier to deal with man made causes, then controlling things like wet lands.

Edited March 14, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

typical EPA sweating the minor stuff and ignoring kids drinking foul water

 

oil and gas production here in the US have been at record levels 

[PeterMP]

typical EPA sweating the minor stuff and ignoring kids drinking foul water

 

oil and gas production here in the US have been at record levels 

 

You wrote this post:

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/398656-the-flint-michigan-water-crisis/?p=10503005

 

right?

 

And again, it isn't US methane or oil production.  It is global methane or oil production.

 

And I'll point out even this paper tied the current increase most likely due to agriculture.  They even say something about there being issues choosing between climate change and food production- so still not biomethane.

 

Look, as long as we're clear the paper wasn't saying that our current absolute levels of methane (which are historically high) is tied to methane escaping from oil wells, I think I'm done here.

 

There is a difference between saying that oil wells aren't driving the current INCREASE in methane levels, where the current increase has only last about a decade and saying that oil wells aren't a major contributor to the longer term increase that has happened over at least the last 40 years or so.

 

And that doing something about things related to that increase over that whole time period, like oil drilling, will likely help at least limit methane increases.

 

We can likely impact global methane levels by forcing oil companies to do a better job of not letting methane escape.

[twa]

Yes I certainly pointed out the water quality issue is no worse than it was for their parents.

 

we should do better than that, just as US oil and gas production DOES better today than most anyone

 

 

Limiting domestic production that is MUCH less wasteful and reduces fugitive methane is counterproductive if you truly believe in AGW

 

NIMBY's drive me crazy, especially those willing to buy foreign supply while proclaiming it as a gain.

[PeterMP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

 

Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia

 

“In 2008, the British Columbia Liberal Party, which confoundingly leans right, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. The party stuck to the tax even as the left-leaning New Democratic Party challenged it in provincial elections the next year under the slogan Axe the Tax. The conservatives won soundly at the polls.

 

Their experience shows that cutting carbon emissions enough to make a difference in preventing global warming remains a difficult challenge. But the most important takeaway for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised.

 

British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined.

 

It performed better on all fronts than I think any of us expected,” said Mary Polak, the province’s environment minister. “To the extent that the people who modeled it predicted this, I’m not sure that those of us on the policy end of it really believed it.”

 

The tax, which rose from 10 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 to 30 dollars by 2012, the equivalent of about $22.20 in current United States dollars, reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with “negligible effects on aggregate economic performance,” according to a study last year by economists at Duke University and the University of Ottawa.

 

The tax made fuel more expensive: A gallon of gas, for example, costs 19 United States cents more. It encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling their homes. Businesses invested in energy efficiency measures and switched to less polluting fuels.

 

Despite the price increases, voters warmed to the tax. Last year only 32 percent of British Columbians opposed the tax, down from 47 percent in 2009.

 

Perhaps most surprisingly, so did big business. And for good reason. As it turns out, a carbon tax is the most efficient, market-friendly instrument available in the quiver against climate change.

 

“We were not very happy when it was first announced,” said Jock A. Finlayson, head of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia. Now, “within the business community there is a sizable constituency saying this is O.K.”

[twa]

we are not BC, but taxes certainly do change behavior.

 

the impact on climate change is what realistically?

 

we have reduced emissions more than that w/o a carbon tax 

[PeterMP]

we are not BC, but taxes certainly do change behavior.

 

the impact on climate change is what realistically?

 

we have reduced emissions more than that w/o a carbon tax 

 

Not much realistically, but I've been saying for a long time that we don't need to fix the problem over night.  We need to start taking steps (though I'm wondering if are steps should start to include reasonable mitigation policies).

 

And yes, we've reduced CO2 emissions with the great recession, and they still aren't back to where it was, and BC was certainly affected by the great recession too so I'm not sure how much of the reduction is due to just slow economic growth vs. the tax.

 

I think the point is less that this is raving success, then it hasn't been the economic disaster predicted by some.

 

I don't think the message is this is the solution or even it has worked out great (there have been issues that would suggest it could be better implemented).  I think the message is the BC economy hasn't tanked as some would have you expect/believe from a carbon tax.

 

It is sort of like the ACA in the way.  It certainly isn't the final solution, and it might even be on the path to the final solution and certainly had issues, but it also hasn't caused the economy to crash.

Edited March 14, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

economies usually do not crash from redistribution thru taxes....there are of course winners and losers

 

 

just as when energy prices are high and domestic production restricted.

the increased domestic supply of NG can do more to reduce emissions than a carbon tax

[PeterMP]

economies usually do not crash from redistribution thru taxes....there are of course winners and losers

 

 

just as when energy prices are high and domestic production restricted.

the increased domestic supply of NG can do more to reduce emissions than a carbon tax

 

It doesn't have to be an either or case.  It can be both, where a carbon tax will incentivize a shift to NG.

 

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/01/carbon-price-will-reduce-emissions-more-computer-models-predict

[tshile]

Stanford.edu - Stanford researchers show fracking's impact to drinking water sources

 

...

A new study by Stanford scientists published in Environmental Science & Technology finds for the first time that fracking operations near Pavillion have had clear impact to underground sources of drinking water. The research paints a picture of unsafe practices including the dumping of drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical concentrations in unlined pits and a lack of adequate cement barriers to protect groundwater.

...

[twa]

Stanford.edu - Stanford researchers show fracking's impact to drinking water sources

 

bit misleading since it covers old methods no longer supported.....but it was nice to see Texas recognized for it's shallow fracking regs.

 

ya'll could learn a few things if ya listened 

[PeterMP]

bit misleading since it covers old methods no longer supported.....but it was nice to see Texas recognized for it's shallow fracking regs.

 

ya'll could learn a few things if ya listened 

 

Not supported by whom?

 

From the story:

 

""There are no rules that would stop a company from doing this anywhere else," said Jackson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy."

Edited March 30, 2016 by PeterMP