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.
