More on Obama''s Green Policy Speech and the Fracking Wars

     As we saw in previous posts, while the President's speech on climate change was widely praised, he was criticized by some environmental activists for the positive things he said about natural gas-and the assumption he will approve the Keystone pipeline. 

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-yves-smith-rule-if-you-have.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-obamas-climate-change-push-al-gore.html

     Some feel that any good his proposals might do in undone by 'fracking.' 

     "If Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline, he’s Climate Criminal #1 — the first face of the Climate Crisis. More on that if he doesn’t step away from the pipe. And if he denies Keystone, he’s on his way to being the hero he clearly wants to be."

      In fact, many environmental advocates and scientists see natural gas as part of a solution to carbons. True, natural gas has carbon in it as well. However, it a much lower level than say coal. 

      Consider what Al Gore said after being questioned on his investment in a natural gas company earlier this year:

      " isn't natural gas a whole heck of a lot better than coal? I mean what are we really complaining about here? If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need lower carbon forms of energy. Here it is!?

   

      "Solar? Wind? You can't get baseline power with that. And nuclear is expensive and decades away! Natural gas is the best hope we have of reducing carbon emissions now."

       Gore is not alone in believing that natural gas can at least be part of a solution:

       Some environmental groups agree with Obama's position that switching from coal-fired power to natural gas has helped reduce emissions and protect the environment.

       "The Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland, Calif., think tank, said in a report released Wednesday that despite problems and legitimate concerns over fracking, the gas industry has "a far smaller impact on mortality and disease, landscapes, waterways, air pollution, and local communities than coal mining and coal burning."

       "Natural gas is a net environmental benefit at local, regional, national, and global levels," the Breakthrough report said.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/obama-fracking-support_n_3510651.html

     What it comes down to is this. Some environmental groups favor a policy of nothing but renewables. Others like those quoted above, accept some nonrenewable sources. Even Germany's goal for it's green economy only seeks to have an 80% renewable economy by 2050. 

     http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/27/1781671/learning-from-the-german-transition-to-renewable-energy/

     There also has been some debate in Germany recently thanks the our natural gas boom here in the states. 

     http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-24/world/38773548_1_gas-production-greenhouse-gas-russian-gas

      These kind of issues are not that easy to decide in the political process. Yes, you can argue that nothing matters more than dealing with climate control before we really are sunk. Yet concerns over consumer prices and jobs can't simply be banished from the discussion. Natural gas is a grey enough area that you can at least have an honest argument for being part of a carbon reduction strategy.