In their current jobs, both have supported natural gas, the production of which by companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chesapeake Energy Corp. has boomed with the adoption of a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking .... and that’s proved divisive among environmentalists.From the linked article:
“In the very long run, very tight carbon constraints will likely phase out natural gas power generation in favor of zero- carbon or extremely low-carbon energy sources,” Moniz said while releasing an MIT report in 2010 about natural gas. “For the next several decades, however, natural gas will play a crucial role in enabling very substantial reductions in carbon emissions.”"For the next several decades?" That's beyond my investing lifetime. Probably my natural lifetime, also.
And:
Moniz has backed expanded overseas sales of U.S. liquefied natural gas, something backed by companies such as Sempra Energy of San Diego and Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Virginia, that are seeking export licenses. LNG is a commercial enterprise that the Energy Department regulates. A report he helped direct concluded, “the U.S. should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or exports.”
Those positions endeared him to industry, while drawing criticisms from groups fighting fracking....But Moniz does want increased regulation on fracking.
Critics say fracking is fouling water supplies in communities from Pennsylvania to North Dakota and replacing one fossil fuel -- coal -- with another. Even before his pick was announced by Obama yesterday, Food & Water Watch, a Washington- based environmental group, circulated a petition against Moniz’s nomination.
Thinking of natural gas as a bridge to cleaner energy is a mistake, said Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club. “We don’t think natural gas allows for increased use of renewable energy,” Brune said in an interview. “We should use as little of it as we can.”Bottom line: another guy who likes more regulation but not a member of the fringe.
This is unrelated. I just finished reading a cover story in the March 2013 issue of National Geographic about the Bakken. Very negative.
ReplyDeleteI think the most common comment I got from folks: condescending. Again, a reporter comes in and makes judgements about an area about which he/she has little knowledge, and preconceived notions.
DeleteLinked here, with a few comments:
http://www.milliondollarwayblog.com/2013/02/national-geographic-article-on-bakken.html
I have no knowledge on who these people are. It would be better to know what their ideology is. I'm not confident in who this president appoints. Is the first test to being appointed the belief that big central government is the solution to every thing? Hopefully the new gal at EPA isn't as radical as Jackson was and the energy department appointee is better connected to reality than Cheu was.
ReplyDeleteTime will tell.
The biggest problem is these bureaucracies take on a life of their own, and feel they need to be doing something: regulate.
DeleteThe previous National Geographic story about North Dakota (2008 I believe)entitled "EMPTY PRAIRIE" was equally unrealistic - although in a totally different direction. I get the feeling that NG knows what pre-conceived story lines sell well to their subscribers, and thus their stories are molded to attract that reader.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, over the decades, the only lasting impact of National Geographic have been some of its pictures - not written content.
I agree completely; the photography is the legacy of National Geographic.
DeleteI assume it has always had an ideological slant/political agenda, but something I did not see when growing up with it.
If nothing else, I learned to read much more critically after the Bill Clinton presidency (the definition of "is"). Even more so than the Watergate scandal. Funny how things work out.
However, having said that, I still subscribe to National Geographic (the only subscription other than the Wall Street Journal) and I love reading it with my granddaughters. And yes, the older one "knows" all about global warming and I never discuss it with her. She will form her own opinions from other sources.