Does it bother leftists that the most progress in CO2 reduction has come from...?

[Note: Warmists rule on this site and they hate the truth so this answer will be quickly hidden.]

Leftist are bothered by anything that undermines their efforts to enslave you. Step one to enslave a population is to make them powerless, everything they do is toward that goal.

If you discovered a way to make clean energy from nothing, Leftist would hate it and fabricate reasons why it was dangerous or destructive in an attempt to shut it down.

Leftist/Warmists/Environmentalists are even in the process of shutting down hydro-electric power, which is about as close to clean energy from nothing as you can get.

In Brazil, Protesters Shut Down World's Largest Hydro Dam Project

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/10/27/i...

Environmentalists Win Fed Backing to Shut Down 4 Hydro Power Plants

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/26...

----------------------------

Interesting question. As a self-confirmed 'Leftist' I do welcome the decrease in CO2 emissions - anything that brings these down is obviously a good thing.

However, there are a few points I would make. ExxonMobil, the largest US oil/gas company, is actually only about the 17th largest in the world. The advances in extracting natural gas have really come from the private sector and multinational companies, many of which are not US based. The only reason I point this out is to temper the somewhat jingoistic slant of your comments. No doubt US engineers have developed innovations but really, the innovations are industry wide.

Secondly, we have to remember why these innovations are required - the natural gas in fields that are easily accessible is running out. So, what the US and many nations have done is increased their dependence on an unsustainable fuel source for short-term CO2 emissions gains. This is not to argue that this is wrong, merely to point out that gas will run out in decades rather than centuries and the problem is simply being shifted to be dealt with later.

The only long-term solution to both secure energy supplies and low CO2 emissions at the moment is nuclear. The US is not going through a massive programme of nuclear expansion which leaves the question, what happens when the gas runs out?

So yes, it is to be welcomed. But gas only temporarily solves the problem.

I have no problem with the use of natural gas as a replacement for coal it is indeed a lower emission source of Co2, but as usual you are trying to make this about left and right and greens and the government.

When what you are talking about is fracking, which has some serious environmental issues, now you could start screaming greenie as those on your side often do, when you don't have genuine info, but the facts are there are serious issues with fracking and the byproducts, toxic chemicals that are used as part of the process that leach into the water table and food chain through food grown using that water as well as those who use the water for drinking. That is why the lead on this issue is being pushed not by greens or leftists as you call them, but farmers, who traditionally have little time for either the left or greens, but you won't want to talk about that will you.

The idea of carbon trading etc. is to set up a market, therefore using markets to drive "change". So unsure why anyone who cares about the environment would begrudge any advancements in "cleaner" energy sources.

I think a big problem is mentalities similar to yours. You see it as a US vs THEM battle, when most people who care about the environment simply care about improving our environment. Market drviers are generally seen as the best drivers for change, and unfortunately generally it is government regulations that now drive market changes. This is because people tend to want to buy the cheapest product (which unfortunately isn't always the best environmental product).

I would suggest another "big" driver for changes such as this, are community awareness and concern for the environment (started around the 1970s). Companies all around the world have tried to be "greener" with their image and continually use PR to push how they are doing good for the community, economy and environment. Don't know specifically about the USA, but in Australia the mining companies are seen as having nearly "no" impact on the natural environment by the general public (of course this is far from the truth, but they invest heavily in this PR campaign, and environmental programs to highlight positives).

Check out the Shell website (think the third or fourth most profitable business in the world). http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_soci... They have a whole section on their website devoted to their environmental sustainability including reports and the like. All of this is a market strategy to demonstrate the environmental conscience of the company. They have had to become more sustainable because of public perception and concerns.

These are all free market drivers that have created change across the world in relation to climate change. I personally think you need to understand that climate change isn't about creating a new world order (or any other conspiracy). Any changes that have positive environmental outcomes will be supported and appauled by anyone who has a genuine concern about the natural environment.

"In the 1970s the United States government initiated the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydro-fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In 1977, the Department of Energy pioneered massive hydraulic fracturing in tight sandstone formations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#...

Doesn't sound like the government "fought" fracking at all ... actually sounds like they were pioneers and heavily pushed the whole process. You of course are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

Also it should be noted that fracking has other environmental impact concerns, so it isn't really an environmental "saviour". However, if processes are in place risks can be minimised.

It makes sense that CO2 increases over the past two CENTURIES since the industrial revolution, AND the much much smaller relative reductions of the last few YEARS, were BOTH mainly attributable to technological developments and market forces. The bogus question here does not make much sense, however, nor does the laughable hypocrisy of the questioner complaining about Gary "starting" [? !!] to call "people names" when the question itself uses the nonsensical insult "leftist."

Speaking of stupid insults, if Obama is a "Marxist" then so is nearly every politician of the last 70 years in the U.S. including most of today's "Tea Party." In that context, "Marxist" is an airheaded categorization that offers basically no explanatory value whatsoever. It would be far more meaningful to simply call Phoenix Quill a lazy full-of-his-own-copy-cat-bull motormouth idiot.

Well as both a republican and a "greenie" most would probably point out that the reason for these "engineering" switches are federal regulations that required it. No one with any sense at all can deny the fact that we are quickly destroying this planet and driving temperatures steadily upward. Is the guy standing on the street corner yelling "hey idiot don't cross yet there's a truck coming!" an "alarmist" or just someone pointing out the obvious?

Ah, I thought you were referring to these reductions as a whole, not specifically to fracking. I suppose you're under the misperception that they came up with this technique as a way to reduce emissions, rather than the fact that they did so as a way to make more money....

You're right about the drastic drop in our CO2 emissions & various government agency's are indeed trying to take some of the credit for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-d...

But the recession & market forces have obviously played a much bigger part in U.S. CO2 reduction than government red tape & regulations.

Empty boarded up factory's & unemployed workers put out a lot less pollution than thriving manufacturing plants full of prosperous employees with extra money to spend.

The recent world wide adoption of fracking technology & resulting cheap natural gas energy available virtually everywhere on the planet could lead to a new age of prosperity similar to the booming 1960's if we can keep the big government socialist loons from interfering too much.

It will be a difficult political fight as cheap natural gas threatens to make even coal & nuclear energy uncompetitive and will certainly make politicians extravagantly expensive pet boondoggle projects of wind & solar power completely out of the question as economically viable energy sources.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428737/a-glut...

Our 4 or 5 year fracking head start may temporarily make us a world energy leader but the industrial giants of Asia will soon catch up..

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/How-the-US-...

Why bring up leftists? do you mean people who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming? No. why would it? I brought this up a few days ago and stated that the US leads the charge in the fight against CO2 emission. It's a definite step in the right direction. Personally I don;t even care if we do continue using coal and oil just as long as that which we burn gets put back into the ground.

>>Patton: Wrong. The engineers who developed fracking have had to fight the government every step of the way. <<

Wrong, nitwit:

"All of the key technologies -- massive hydraulic fracking, horizontal wells, and advanced earth imaging -- were developed by government scientists and by government agencies working with and sometimes funding private entrepreneurs."

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/12/history_of...

Dan Steward (Former Mitchell Energy Vice President):

"In the seventies we started looking at running out of gas, and that's when the DOE started looking for more.

The DOE's [1976] Eastern Gas Shales Project [in the Appalachia basin] determined there was a hell of a lot of gas in shales. It was the biggest accumulation of data and knowledge to date. It set the stage for people to have the basic background and caused people to start asking questions, and that's always important.

They did a hell of a lot of work, and I can't give them enough credit for that. DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement."

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/12/interview_...

=====

edit --

And I quote: "The engineers who developed fracking have had to fight the government every step of the way."

>>I have friends in this field and the government is their biggest obstacle.<<

Yeah, and I have a friend whose ex-wife's cousin is a high ranking Illuminati official and knows that fracking is really a way to recover secret treasures brought over from Europe after the French Revolution.

It certainly does bother them. Fracking is the technology that allows previously untapped access to oil and gas in certain shales. With the use of fracking, we could become energy independent, IMO. You will notice that they attack fracking with the same furosity that they use to attack corporations, "Big Oil," capitalism, and anything that threatens their belief in AGW. As a geologist that deals with protecting groundwater, IMO the exaggeration that the left (yes they too are nearly all on the left) has used to try to ban fracking is junk science. They would apparently rather that we get our oil from hostile sources as evidenced by Obama just unilaterally stopping the pipeline from our neighbor to the north and throwing up road blocks to any fracking.

I think Obama has successfully reduced our emissions but it comes largely from the recession that he is prolonging.

As someone that comes from California, I get to see first hand the destructiveness of overzealous regulators. Believe me, I see it daily. They make it difficult to clean the environment in a practical and cost efficient way. Outside of my industry, AB32 is set to give a knockout blow to a punch drunk California that is still seeking to empty the pockets of fleeing industrial base and population that is heading for greener (not so green) pastures.