The Sierra Club...bicycles are the only way

[okie52]

Sierra Club blasts plan to improve fracking in the Northeast
Published March 22, 2013
Associated Press


PITTSBURGH – The Sierra Club and some other environmental groups are harshly criticizing a new partnership that aims to create tough new standards for fracking.

The criticism Thursday came a day after two of the nation's biggest oil and gas companies made peace with some national and regional environmental groups, agreeing to go through an independent review of their shale oil and gas drilling operations in the Northeast.

If Shell Oil, Chevron Appalachia and other companies are found to be abiding by a list of stringent measures to protect the air and water from pollution, they will receive the blessing of the new Pittsburgh-based Center for Sustainable Shale Development, created by environmentalists and the energy industry.

But some are questioning whether a partnership between environmentalists and the oil and gas industry should exist at all.

"We know that our continued reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels, like natural gas, will not solve the climate crisis, even with the best controls in place," said Deb Nardone, a Sierra Club campaign director, who called the new plan "akin to slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping wound."

"The majority of natural gas must stay in the ground if we want any chance of avoiding climate disaster," Nardone said.

An Ohio environmental group wasn't happy, either.

"This deal in no way represents the interests or agreement of the people being harmed by fracking in Ohio," said Sandy Buchanan, the director of Ohio Citizen Action. "A hydraulic fracturing peace treaty? Not so fast, my friend."

In addition to Shell and Chevron, the participants in the new center include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Heinz Endowments, the Clean Air Task Force, EQT Corp. and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. The organizers hope to recruit new members, too.

The project will cover Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio -- where a frenzy of drilling is under way in the huge, gas-rich Marcellus and Utica Shale formations. If fracking is approved in New York and other states in the East that have put a hold on new drilling, it could apply there, too.

The Environmental Defense Fund responded to the Sierra Club criticism by noting that the new plan is meant to be a complement to strong regulations, not a replacement.
"When an opportunity comes to engage companies constructively and hold them to a higher standard, we're going to take that opportunity every time," said Mark Brownstein, EDF associate vice president. He added that the new partnership with oil and gas companies comes with "a heavy dose of trust but verify" reality.

Brownstein noted that extensive oil and gas fracking is already taking place in many states and that it makes sense to improve standards in those places in every way possible.

During fracking, large volumes of water, along with sand and hazardous chemicals, are injected into the ground to break rock apart and free the oil and gas. In some places, the practice has been blamed for air pollution and gas leaks that have ruined well water, but President Barack Obama's administration and many state regulators say the practice is safe when done properly.

Last year, the Sierra Club acknowledged that from 2007 to 2010, it had secretly accepted about $26 million from individuals or subsidies connected to Chesapeake Energy, one of the leaders in the fracking boom. After deciding it would no longer take such donations, the group launched a campaign that is critical of the gas drilling industry.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania regulators have endorsed the new plan.

Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Kevin Sunday said the agency "applauds this collaboration between natural gas operators and non-governmental organizations. The best practices this group's document speaks to -- better on-site waste management practices, more recycling of wastewater, progressive fracturing fluid disclosure, and protecting private water supplies -- are vital concepts of responsible gas development. "

Sunday said the state has toughened standards over the last few years, and he praised "a cooperative spirit among oil and gas stakeholders to continually raise the bar of performance."
Another person who was involved with the creation of the Pittsburgh center suggested that the Sierra Club and others are missing a key point.

John Hanger, the former director of the Pennsylvania DEP, wrote in a blog post Thursday that "ultimately, it will matter not that individual gas producers like or dislike CSSD. What will be decisive is that consumers of gas from Washington DC to Maine and from New York to Chicago will demand that their gas is certified as sustainably managed."

Other members of the Pittsburgh center note that independent certification programs in forestry and seafood have had some success. The first such program -- Underwriters Laboratory -- has been certifying electrical products since 1894.

The Pittsburgh project will be overseen by a 12-member board consisting of four seats for environmentalists, four for industry and four for independent figures, including former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency chief.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/sierra-club-blasts-new-plan-to-improve-fracking/#ixzz2OI1OA3X2

.

[Midtowner]

They're right.

[C&CDean]

Being bat**** crazy does not make one right.

[okie52]

They're right.

Anytime you or the Sierra Club want to throw out the facts supporting your position...feel free to do so.

You are a believer in AGW, aren't you? You do believe CO2 is the culprit behind AGW, don't you?

In the last 4 years NG reduced CO2 emissions in the US by 20%...far more than any cap and trade would have accomplished.

[okie52]

Being bat**** crazy does not make one right.

In their own mind it does...even when the facts don't support it.

[Midtowner]

No, but being correct on facts and science does. Not subscribing to man-made global warming is dogmatic and departs from the vast majority of science. You can deny it, but you're a flat-Earther if you do.

[Midtowner]

Natural gas cannot be credited with the reductions in the US CO2 emissions observed in the last half-decade. Most reductions, nearly 90%, were caused by the decline in petroleum use, displacement of coal by mostly non-price factors, and its replacement by wind, hydro and other renewables. Where low price of natural gas saved some CO2 by displacing coal, it was quickly offset by its increased use in other sectors—highlighting the pitfall of justifying the current market for natural gas as a “bridge” or an interim phase of transition towards clean energy.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/07/651821/shale-gas-and-the-fairy-tale-of-its-co2-reductions/

[okie52]

No, but being correct on facts and science does. Not subscribing to man-made global warming is dogmatic and departs from the vast majority of science. You can deny it, but you're a flat-Earther if you do.

So let's go with science. NG is greatly reducing CO2...to deny it would put you in the flat earther category. But deny away, but please show your facts in the process.

[sappstuf]

President Barack Obama's administration and many state regulators say the practice is safe when done properly.


They're right.

Good for you Mid.

[okie52]

Natural Gas Reduces CO2 Emissions More Effectively than Renewables
February 27, 2013

JAMES M. TAYLOR, J.D.
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly... (read full bio)
EMAIL

Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg may foolishly agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding many speculative and discredited global warming claims, but he does understand the compelling economic reasons not to buy into the alarmists proposed solutions. In a compelling article published in Slate, Lomborg explains how natural gas production through hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is doing more to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions than all of the nation’s wind farms and solar panels put together.

It is still more expensive to generate electricity from natural gas rather than coal, but natural gas dramatically reduces carbon dioxide and pollutants much more affordably than wind power and solar power.

“Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years. It’s not because of wind or solar power,” writes Lomborg..

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/02/27/natural-gas-reduces-co2-emissions-more-effectively-renewables


Although natural gas is a more efficient fossil fuel than coal, burning it still produces carbon dioxide emissions. One of its strengths is that it produces more kilowatts of power than the equivalent amount of coal and it provides more energy for each carbon dioxide molecule emitted into the atmosphere. This so-called carbon efficiency is a crucial factor that allows scientists to project carbon dioxide emissions, with more efficient energy sources contributing less to climate change than the more inefficient sources.

Coal-fired electric power generation puts out about twice the amount of carbon dioxide — around 2,000 pounds for every megawatt hour generated — than electricity generated by burning natural gas. But that is still about 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour for electricity from natural gas. Scientists suggest the United States needs to reduce emissions to around 350 to 400 pounds per megawatt hour to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.

The extraction of large natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale has contributed to the rise of inexpensive natural gas, causing prices to decline in the last four years and making it a far cheaper option than burning coal. In 2005, coal accounted for half of all electricity generated in the country. But the embrace of natural gas, which now accounts for about 30 percent of electricity generation, has caused coal’s share to retreat to 34 percent, a 40-year low.


What's Reducing Carbon Emissions? Natural Gas.
by Noah Kristula-Green Aug 17, 2012 10:45 AM EDT


One of the unsung innovations in energy extraction is the ability to retrieve shale gas out of tight rock formations. It is cleaner than coal, and thanks to its abundance, natural gas prices have gone down significantly.

The Associated Press reports on a stunning result of this: America's carbon emissions have been reduced to levels not seen since 1992.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/17/shale-gas0.html

[okie52]

Here is a part of the big bugaboo for many greenies with NG.


US Cutting Carbon Pollution With Fracking
AUG 21, 2012 04:21 PM ET // BY TIM WALL


The United States has made more reductions in greenhouse gas emission than any other nation over the past six years, according to the International Energy Agency. This year, cheap natural gas helped the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 5.2 billion metric tons, a level not seen since 1992.

Gas from the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, wells in the eastern U.S. has flooded the market and slashed the price of natural from $7-$8 down to $3 per unit over the past four years, reported the AP. That made gas cheaper to use than coal. Since natural gas produces less carbon dioxide and other pollutants when it is burned as compared to coal, more natural gas use has resulted in less environmental contamination.

“There’s a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources,” Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado, told the AP.

However, the move towards an energy economy inflated with cheap gas has environmental costs. The same economic forces that are squeezing coal out of the energy market are putting the hurt on renewable energy production as well.

“The natural gas boom also presents the prospect of imminent harm to the deployment of renewable energy, and dire environmental consequences that will follow from a failure to cease adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,” wrote Kevin Doran and Adam Reed of the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, a joint institute of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the University of Colorado, in Environment360. “The growing swell toward a utility sector dominated by natural gas has already resulted in collateral damage throughout the renewables industry.”

Besides stifling the development of carbon-free energy sources, the boom in natural gas has been controversial for its impact on the environment. The hydraulic fracturing technique being used to free natural gas from shale formations has been correlated with man-made earthquakes. Some are concerned that ground water supplies are being contaminated by the fluids used in the technique.

(Dual Freq, Wikimedia Commons)

[C&CDean]

No, but being correct on facts and science does. Not subscribing to man-made global warming is dogmatic and departs from the vast majority of science. You can deny it, but you're a flat-Earther if you do.

You're not correct on facts or science. You are bat**** crazy just like the dildos you listen to. Flat-earth this mother****er.

[yermom]

yep, fracking sounds totally harmless to the environment

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-Plants-Struggle-Treat-Wastewater.html


the chemicals exceeded drinking water standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At the Greene County plant, the levels of barium and strontium, two toxic metals found in fracking wastewater, were on average 5.99 and 48.3 mg/L, respectively. EPA drinking water standards for these metals are 2 and 4 mg/L, respectively.

burning NG still makes CO2, does it not?

[okie52]

A Fracking Good Story

Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years. It’s not because of wind or solar power.
By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, at 6:30 AM


Weather conditions around the world this summer have provided ample fodder for the global warming debate. Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.

But, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.

The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45 percent less carbon per energy unit. The U.S. used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20 percent from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.

America’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.
For starters, fracking has caused gas prices to drop dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, natural gas has not been this cheap for the past 35 years, with the price this year three to five times lower than it was in the mid-2000s. And, while a flagging economy may explain a small portion of the drop in U.S. carbon emissions, the EIA emphasizes that the major explanation is natural gas.

The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the U.S. population over the past two decades. Indeed, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped about 20 percent per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.
David Victor, an energy expert at UC-San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced U.S. emissions by 400 to 500 megatons CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

It is tempting to believe that renewable energy sources are responsible for emissions reductions, but the numbers clearly say otherwise. Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-10th the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only 10 megatons, and solar panels by a paltry three megatons.

This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions—through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax—is the only way to combat climate change.

But, based on Europe’s experience, such policies are precisely the wrong way to address global warming. Since 1990, the EU has heavily subsidized solar and wind energy at a cost of more than $20 billion annually. Yet its per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the U.S.—even in percentage terms, the U.S. is now doing better.

Because of broad European skepticism about fracking, there is no gas miracle in the EU, while the abundance of heavily subsidized renewables has caused overachievement of the CO2 target. Along with the closure of German nuclear power stations, this has led, ironically, to a resurgence of coal.

Well-meaning U.S. politicians have likewise shown how not to tackle global warming with subsidies and tax breaks. The relatively small reduction in emissions achieved through wind power costs more than $3.3 billion annually, and far smaller reductions from ethanol (biofuels) and solar panels cost at least $8.5 and $3 billion annually.
Estimates suggest that using carbon taxes to achieve a further 330-megaton CO2 reduction in the EU would cost $250 billion per year. Meanwhile, the fracking bonanza in the U.S. not only delivers a much greater reduction for free, but also creates long-term social benefits through lower energy costs.

The amazing truth is that fracking has succeeded where Kyoto and carbon taxes have failed. As shown in a study by the Breakthrough Institute, fracking was built on substantial government investment in technological innovation for three decades.

Climate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests.

Fracking is not a panacea, but it really is by far this decade’s best green-energy option..

[okie52]

yep, fracking sounds totally harmless to the environment

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-Plants-Struggle-Treat-Wastewater.html



burning NG still makes CO2, does it not?

Sure, at half the CO2 of coal and 1/3 less than oil. So you are against substituting NG for oil and coal?

How about nukes? They produce no CO2.

[Midtowner]

The vast availability of opinion pieces in favor of Natural Gas is enough to remind one of the folks who used to tell you smoking was healthy.

[okie52]

The vast availability of opinion pieces in favor of Natural Gas is enough to remind one of the folks who used to tell you smoking was healthy.

You've seen through it all..eh, Mid?

Does NG produce less CO2 than oil or coal? Feel free to post your scientific response.

[OU68]

The vast availability of opinion pieces in favor of Natural Gas is enough to remind one of the folks who used to tell you smoking was healthy.

And a majority of Americans voted for Obama - meh.

[yermom]

Sure, at half the CO2 of coal and 1/3 less than oil. So you are against substituting NG for oil and coal?

How about nukes? They produce no CO2.

i'd rather see an oil spill than things like Japan's tsunami issues...

[cleller]

So just what would be the preferred method of bringing electric power, warmth, etc to Americans in a way that they can afford? It should also be a method that will actually provide the necessary electricity and warmth in the near term.

Dangerous as they seem, nukes would fit the bill if you want to reduce gases and stop fracking.

Otherwise, those condemning fracking, oil, whatever, should do something to demonstrate their commitment. Cut themselves off the power grid, walk or bike wherever they go, raise their own food, weave their own fabrics, etc.

[okie52]

i'd rather see an oil spill than things like Japan's tsunami issues...

Everything has a risk...A category 9 earthquake followed by an enormous tsunami with 130 foot waves on a reactor built near a faultline and on the coastline....stupid location.

But you didn't answer the question on NG.

[XingTheRubicon]

Man, you would think after someone is blatantly dressed down on a certain subject, they might learn from that.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Can we please get back to talking about fracking? I'm getting a boner.

[olevetonahill]

Can we please get back to talking about fracking? I'm getting a boner.

Heh, are we having a Fracking good time ?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

If this fracking boner holds, yeah. Probably.

[olevetonahill]

If this fracking boner holds, yeah. Probably.

:congratulatory:

[yermom]

Everything has a risk...A category 9 earthquake followed by an enormous tsunami with 130 foot waves on a reactor built near a faultline and on the coastline....stupid location.

But you didn't answer the question on NG.

which question is that?

the Sierra Club says that using NG doesn't solve the carbon output problem, which it doesn't really. then there is the fracking issue to the side of that.

that being said, NG helps with other issues...but ignoring the issues with fracking isn't helping.

[okie52]

which question is that?

the Sierra Club says that using NG doesn't solve the carbon output problem, which it doesn't really. then there is the fracking issue to the side of that.

that being said, NG helps with other issues...but ignoring the issues with fracking isn't helping.

The question was "were you against substituting NG for oil and coal?

There is no ignoring the issues with fracking. The above article shows a cooperative relationship between oil companies and environmental/governmental agencies to make fracking as safe as possible. And after 1,000,000 wells you would think the various environmental groups/governmental agencies would have overwhelming evidence to support their position...yet study after study including Obama's administration show fracking can be done safely.

The Sierra Club evidently can't do the math. NG used as a substitute for oil and/or coal will reduce CO2 by 33% and 50% respectively. So it ABSOLUTELY reduces CO2 emissions in those circumstances. It doesn't solve the the total CO2 problem in this country but it certainly moves CO2 reductions in the right direction...which supposedly any believer of AGW should be for.

[yermom]

"safely"

[C&CDean]

Man, you would think after someone is blatantly dressed down on a certain subject, they might learn from that.

Liberals ain't known for brains.

[okie52]

You dam Farmers and Ranchers:


Are cows the cause of global warming?

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.
Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year).

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector). Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.



Are cows to blame for global warming? Are cattle the true cause for climate change?
We cannot deny that farming has a major impact on global warming. Since farming is basically serving the consumer's demand for food, we should look at our nourishment. With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

A Japanese study showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a global warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2). It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy (Animal Science Journal, DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x). In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days (New Scientist magazine, 18 July 2007, page 15 ).

The following tables indicates the CO2 production in kg CO2 equivalents per kg of meat depending on the animal:

1 kg of meat from
produces kg CO2e
beef 34.6
lamb 17.4
pork 6.35
chicken 4.57
Source: Environmental Impacts on Food Production and Consumption. http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/EV02007/EV02007_4601_FRP.pdf



Conclusion: Eat less meat and dairy products
The most important conclusion for ourselves is: Eat much less meat and dairy products. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce our personal carbon footprint and to generally reduce our personal negative impact on the environment.

Finally a quote from Albert Einstein (Nobel prize 1921): Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.



Report from FAO: LIVESTOCK'S LONG SHADOW, environmental issues and options

We need to be vegans!!!!!

[pphilfran]

All energy types have risks....those rare mineral mines in 3rd world countries are damn sure a risk in the solar sector...

Increases NG and crude production has far many more positives than negatives....fuel cell and electrics still have a long way to go to become competitive in the car market and a couple of decades before they can handle the long haul trucking sector...put a fueling sector in place and use it for cars over the short term and trucks longer term...

And lower emissions
And lower costs
And create thousands of high paying jobs
And stop billions from going over seas....

[soonerhubs]

Matlock should consider the carbon footprint it takes to be a troll. ;)

[jkjsooner]

So let's go with science. NG is greatly reducing CO2...to deny it would put you in the flat earther category. But deny away, but please show your facts in the process.

It reduces the rate of increase of CO2. It still increases the problem just less so than oil. That is why the Sierra Club doesn't like it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It reduces the rate of increase of CO2. It still increases the problem just less so than oil. That is why the Sierra Club doesn't like it.

Uh....wtf?

[Midtowner]

It reduces the rate of increase of CO2. It still increases the problem just less so than oil. That is why the Sierra Club doesn't like it.

Exactly. Fossil fuels are what is fueling man made global warming. If we invested the same amount of money in renewable energy, building, for example, nuclear plants which run on spent fuel, it'd be very expensive in the short run, energy would cost more, but this cheap and abundant energy is what the problem is. Producing NG like crazy is going to be a serious problem for the entire planet.

[yermom]

Uh....wtf?

just adding carbon dioxide slower is still adding carbon dioxide

[Soonerjeepman]

Cut themselves off the power grid, walk or bike wherever they go, raise their own food, weave their own fabrics, etc.

LOL...then they couldn't post on here and bitch about us consumers~

That's what I love about these libs...they love their toys/warm cold houses/cars suv's/easy access to food/restaurants/American way of life BUT complain about how we get it.

[Midtowner]

If you provide cheap energy, it'll be consumed. Is that a shocking and novel concept?

[okie52]

It reduces the rate of increase of CO2. It still increases the problem just less so than oil. That is why the Sierra Club doesn't like it.

Isn't that the idea? To decrease CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. Nothing will do that as quickly as NG because of the NG's ability to replace coal and oil on a massive scale while not damaging the economy (something that can be said for solar and wind). Rather NG would be enhancing the economy by reducing oil imports and our trade deficits and providing high paying jobs and tax revenues here in the US.

As alternative energy sources and conservation methods improve they can gradually supplant NG...but that process will take decades even here in the US.

Every breath taken by every animal increases CO2. A more logical approach would be to reduce human population by lower birthrates while at the same time reduce each human's carbon footprint.

[okie52]

Exactly. Fossil fuels are what is fueling man made global warming. If we invested the same amount of money in renewable energy, building, for example, nuclear plants which run on spent fuel, it'd be very expensive in the short run, energy would cost more, but this cheap and abundant energy is what the problem is. Producing NG like crazy is going to be a serious problem for the entire planet.

You think the Sierra Club supports nuclear energy?

Obama won't go the spent fuel by reprocessing route even though nuclear waste could be reduced by up to 95%. He even closed Yucca which was approved by the National Academy of Sciences for 10,000 years (and his own energy secretary). And nukes have gotten so impossible to build due to red tape that we haven't had a brand new nuke at a new site in over 30 years.
But I would definitely support nukes.

Producing NG like "crazy" in the next few decades along with greater efficiency and conservation methods should be exactly what this planet wants. China and India are adding a new coal plant every week and they have about 1/3 of the world's population. China and India are not going to give up their coal or cheap energy which they feel would sabotage their economies. Get them on NG and nukes while the alternative energy develops is the best "realistic" approach to AGW.

Without China and India on board with AGW it won't make much of a difference what the US does.

[jkjsooner]

Uh....wtf?

Take a calculus class. Can't help you if you don't understand basic math.

[pphilfran]

Obama won't go the spent fuel by reprocessing route even though nuclear waste could be reduced by up to 95%. He even closed Yucca which was approved by the National Academy of Sciences for 10,000 years (and his own energy secretary). And nukes have gotten so impossible to build due to red tape that we haven't had a brand new nuke at a new site in over 30 years.
But I would definitely support nukes.

Producing NG like "crazy" in the next few decades along with greater efficiency and conservation methods should be exactly what this planet wants. China and India are adding a new coal plant every week and they have about 1/3 of the world's population. China and India are not going to give up their coal or cheap energy which they feel would sabotage their economies. Get them on NG and nukes while the alternative energy develops is the best "realistic" approach to AGW.

Without China and India on board with AGW it won't make much of a difference what the US does.

We decrease our output of CO2 while China, over the last 10 years, increased their yearly output by an amount equal to what the US emits in a year....

US 2000 - 5863 million metric tons
US 2011 - 5490 million metric tons

China 2000 - 3272 million metric tons
China 2011 - 8715 million metric tons

[jkjsooner]

Isn't that the idea? To decrease CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. Nothing will do that as quickly as NG because of the NG's ability to replace coal and oil on a massive scale while not damaging the economy (something that can be said for solar and wind). Rather NG would be enhancing the economy by reducing oil imports and our trade deficits and providing high paying jobs and tax revenues here in the US.


I agree and I don't agree with the Sierra Club. However, the assertion that they are like flat earthers is off base because they're coming from a different perspective. From their perspective reducing the rate of CO2 isn't enough as it ultimately means the problem will get worse just at a slower rate. Whether naive or not, they're position is scientifically valid. That was my only point.

[okie52]

We decrease our output of CO2 while China, over the last 10 years, increased their yearly output by an amount equal to what the US emits in a year....

US 2000 - 5863 million metric tons
US 2011 - 5490 million metric tons

China 2000 - 3272 million metric tons
China 2011 - 8715 million metric tons

I know you understand it, old buddy. 1.3 Billion people with a developing economy is the real elephant in the room...and, of course, India too.

[okie52]

just adding carbon dioxide slower is still adding carbon dioxide

Quit exhaling.

[pphilfran]

Take a calculus class. Can't help you if you don't understand basic math.

You are correct in your statement but you are living in the land of fairy dust and unicorns....
It is going to take 10 years (at least) to provide an electric vehicle with long rang and a compatible cost to current gas burners....
It is going to take another 20 years before those electrics have a big enough market share to do any good in the removal of old gas burners....

And then we have the long range heavy trucking fleet...we are decades away from seeing something to replace the diesel...but NG can be adapted today...and is...get a little government backing of fueling stations and we would see many more of these trucks on the road in a shorter period of time...not to mention dual fuel cars coming out due to lower fuel costs and a place to fuel them...

Wind and solar do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions from oil burning power plants -less than 1/2 of 1% of our electricity comes from oil burners...and those oil burners are old and will be shut down due to age an high operation costs...no fed regs needed...

We seem to be fine with Clean Coal - use a high percentage of the electricity that is generated to scrub off the CO2...and then bury several cubic miles of compressed CO2 underground for forever...but we can't seem to find a place to store a much smaller amount of nuke waste for 100k years...

But you want to ignore the chance of a lifetime and put your eggs in the electric basket that is not going to be viable for another decade for passenger cars and many more decades for long haul trucking...

[pphilfran]

I know you understand it, old buddy. 1.3 Billion people with a developing economy is the real elephant in the room...and, of course, India too.

India has gone from a 1000 in year 2000 to 1725 in 2011....

So China and India combined for nearly 10,500 million metric tons...nearly double the US emission tonnage....and 1/3 of total world emissions...

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=regions&syid=2000&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD

[sappstuf]

Quit exhaling.

lol

[okie52]

I agree and I don't agree with the Sierra Club. However, the assertion that they are like flat earthers is off base because they're coming from a different perspective. From their perspective reducing the rate of CO2 isn't enough as it ultimately means the problem will get worse just at a slower rate. Whether naive or not, they're position is scientifically valid. That was my only point.

Their perspective or "approach" contains little or no pragmatism to the issue. In that regard they are just as out of touch with reality as the flat earthers. US efforts towards reducing CO2 will be almost pointless without China, India and other developing countries on board and that isn't going to happen in the near future. The vacuum that the Sierra Club proposes is one that would destroy the US economy while doing little to reduce worldwide AGW.

Scientifically valid? If NG would reduce US CO2 emissions by an additional 30% in the next 20 years and it took solar and wind 40 years to do the same thing...which approach is more valid?

Of course the idea is that when solar and wind are viable alternatives they would replace NG...but you wouldn't have killed our economy in the process.

One place the Sierra Club finally moved in the right direction:


Breaking a Long Silence on Population Control

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/earth/bringing-up-the-issue-of-population-growth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But even now it is a soft spoken, little discussed issue by the Sierra Club.

Do you think AGW would be a problem now if the world had 1 billion instead of 7 billion people. Rather than correlate the industrial revolution to AGW it should be population growth over the same period of time.

[okie52]

India has gone from a 1000 in year 2000 to 1725 in 2011....

So China and India combined for nearly 10,500 million metric tons...nearly double the US emission tonnage....and 1/3 of total world emissions...

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=regions&syid=2000&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD


And we know their numbers will continue to rise dramatically as their economies grow.

[Ton Loc]

WTF are we arguing about again?

The Sierra Club is full of people that don't share their opinions, but the opinions of the people they get their money from. Their points on fracking would be slightly legit, if all the fracking ever done or to be done was done irresponsibly and with safety thrown out the window. Because its not really fracking that's the problem, but the operator or company that is carrying it out. Damn, haven't we covered that about 10,000 times on this site. Linking some article provided by the Sierra Club isn't providing any new information.

Everyone wants to go around ****ting on everything but not providing their own answer; unless it's so insanely general that its pointless. (See a lot of those around here)

Everything has a cost, a risk, and a potential reward. Right now, NG is the answer that best checks all those boxes. If you don't like it, quiet down or come up with a real alternative that beats out NG in those categories.

[okie52]

You are correct in your statement but you are living in the land of fairy dust and unicorns....
It is going to take 10 years (at least) to provide an electric vehicle with long rang and a compatible cost to current gas burners....
It is going to take another 20 years before those electrics have a big enough market share to do any good in the removal of old gas burners....

And then we have the long range heavy trucking fleet...we are decades away from seeing something to replace the diesel...but NG can be adapted today...and is...get a little government backing of fueling stations and we would see many more of these trucks on the road in a shorter period of time...not to mention dual fuel cars coming out due to lower fuel costs and a place to fuel them...

Wind and solar do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions from oil burning power plants -less than 1/2 of 1% of our electricity comes from oil burners...and those oil burners are old and will be shut down due to age an high operation costs...no fed regs needed...

We seem to be fine with Clean Coal - use a high percentage of the electricity that is generated to scrub off the CO2...and then bury several cubic miles of compressed CO2 underground for forever...but we can't seem to find a place to store a much smaller amount of nuke waste for 100k years...

But you want to ignore the chance of a lifetime and put your eggs in the electric basket that is not going to be viable for another decade for passenger cars and many more decades for long haul trucking...

I hope that Aubrey's initiative for West Coast CNG/LNG refueling locations didn't leave with him.

[Petro-Sooner]

Everybody just go eat your lettuce. Fuel and heat will come from wind rainbows and fairy dust like the good Lord intended.

[okie52]

Everybody just go eat your lettuce. Fuel and heat will come from wind rainbows and fairy dust like the good Lord intended.

I feel better now.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Take a calculus class. Can't help you if you don't understand basic math.

If you think spinning something to fit your eye is calculus, then you're even a bigger **** tard than what I thought you were...

[Turd_Ferguson]

WTF are we arguing about again?

The Sierra Club is full of people that don't share their opinions, but the opinions of the people they get their money from. Their points on fracking would be slightly legit, if all the fracking ever done or to be done was done irresponsibly and with safety thrown out the window. Because its not really fracking that's the problem, but the operator or company that is carrying it out. Damn, haven't we covered that about 10,000 times on this site. Linking some article provided by the Sierra Club isn't providing any new information.

Everyone wants to go around ****ting on everything but not providing their own answer; unless it's so insanely general that its pointless. (See a lot of those around here)

Everything has a cost, a risk, and a potential reward. Right now, NG is the answer that best checks all those boxes. If you don't like it, quiet down or come up with a real alternative that beats out NG in those categories.

Ton Loc is gonna kick your *** for hacking his account...

[jkjsooner]

If you think spinning something to fit your eye is calculus, then you're even a bigger **** tard than what I thought you were...

Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. Learn what a derivative is then get back to me.

[jkjsooner]

Their perspective or "approach" contains little or no pragmatism to the issue. In that regard they are just as out of touch with reality as the flat earthers.

I agree with this and just about everything else you posted. My comments were only addressing the specific point I quoted.

Let me tell you how I operate. If I see someone post something misleading or flat out incorrect then I'll likely correct them. If others mistakenly assume that defines the position I take on the larger issue they are often times wrong.

Take Turd for example, he clearly has no grasp of the difference between a decrease in the rate of change vs a decrease in total CO2 yet we probably both are in favor of natural gas drilling.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I'm in favor of boobies.

[StoopTroup]

I just don't think that anyone can own the rights to Gas or Oil. I think the Government should own it and as a matter of National Security they should regulate all of it and go back to funding NASA and other Scientific Entities who can produce real solid proof and numbers that provide our Country with a just how much we have left and just how much we should be buying from OPEC, Venezuela, Columbia, Russia, China etc....

Everyone in the industry can become Government Employees / Civil Servants.

Same with Minerals and Stones.

It's obvious that if we dig up every last speck of it all that we will need to find an alternative. The GOP continues to blab on about leaving our Children with this mountain of National Debt but if there is a real way to pay it down.....they have had the opportunity to do it in the last 50 years and instead of doing it....in 46 of the last 50 years, they have run a deficit just like the Dems.

Now....I know my first Paragraph really got your goat up if your livelihood comes from Oil and Gas and I don't really believe that should happen but I do think the Industry needs to really believe that they just can't rape our Earth of every drop of oil or every tank of NG when the folks in the industry have more money than they will need in many lifetimes. I think that many of you in the industry work damn hard for them and many of you have rights to the oil they pump out of the ground and need the pittance they offer you to pay the taxes on your land and to provide for your Family.

Sierra? They are there because of the industry's past and how they have many times left a mess that others have had to clean up. They have left the land unusable in some cases. They used people's greed to their advantage or even lied to them about cleaning up afterwards. You can't continue to make a mess out of our Country and then have the tax payers pay the bill for a Supersite Cleanup and not expect some of this to come back to haunt you. Eventually you can't buy off every Senator or Representative on the Hill to get your way.

Sierra? Yeah they are bat**** crazy....but when you have pushed folks into a corner or done something to put an end to future generations of their Family....you might expect to run into some bat**** crazy folks in the future.....unless you intend to kill them all.

I do like Tone Loc's approach. Positive solutions are much better than drawing a line in the sand and daring each other to cross it.


Everyone wants to go around ****ting on everything but not providing their own answer; unless it's so insanely general that its pointless. (See a lot of those around here)

Everything has a cost, a risk, and a potential reward. Right now, NG is the answer that best checks all those boxes. If you don't like it, quiet down or come up with a real alternative that beats out NG in those categories.

There are very few places to live that are better than the good Old USA. I like knowing that there are good people who run things or devote years of their lives making sure it stays that way. We are so lucky that those who came before us saw just how lucky we were to find this part of the World and use it to keep evil in check instead of advance evil. We now have the opportunity to reach out into Space as our final Frontier. We have the opportunity to quit shatting in our Oceans. Imagine if we found another fuel source because of Space Technology? Imagine if we found a way to just leave all the oil and gas in the ground. I know that would be awful for many of you as you depend on the money from the industry....but imagine if we found a different non-polluting source of energy. Would you use it or would you be happy your Senator or Rep covered it up? Would you be glad they cut the spending at NASA or others to keep your little paycheck coming?

[Skysooner]

This is basically a non-issue. The reason the US leads the world in its economy (at least for now) is efficiency. The two biggest costs to companies are personnel and energy. Personnel costs are not going down anytime soon. Energy costs are very cheap and will continue to be so for a long time due to NG. The Sierra Club can do all it wants, but if they get some insane regulations passed, this country is going to go downhill even faster (the debt is a topic for another thread). If we increased wind, solar, etc. by 700-800% for the next decade, it would still provide less than 1-2% of our energy needs. We are talking power that is going to cost a fortune and will kneecap this country in competition for the world economy. This is a war people. We have no guarantees we will survive as an economic superpower. With cheap NG (well over 100 years worth at this point), we can continue to compete until salaries in the other countries come up.

[Ton Loc]

Ton Loc is gonna kick your *** for hacking his account...

He works at a place that's largely invested in NG. There are some things I pay attention to. Plus, I have an issue with one of the members of the Sierra Club. So yeah, I'm biased.

In Oklahoma - I'm still a liberal pansy. Anywhere else, I'd get the opposite.

[cleller]

I just don't think that anyone can own the rights to Gas or Oil. I think the Government should own it and as a matter of National Security they should regulate all of it and go back to funding NASA and other Scientific Entities who can produce real solid proof and numbers that provide our Country with a just how much we have left and just how much we should be buying from OPEC, Venezuela, Columbia, Russia, China etc....

Everyone in the industry can become Government Employees / Civil Servants.



If this were the case, I wonder what our country would look like today? Somehow I doubt we would have achieved the prosperity we have now. All the wealth that energy has produced has had an incalculable effect on our economy, research, efficiency, knowledge, etc. If this had all been channeled to the government it would have been a boondoggle.

The government would them completely control all our access to fuel, electricity, transportation, commerce, etc. They'd also have been in charge of countless offshoots and byproducts of the energy business. Plastics, films, chemicals, who knows what all would have their R&D tied to government bureaucracies.

Sounds like a nightmare. We'd be like Venezuela or Russia right now.

[bluedogok]

The problem developing alternative energy technologies is as soon as someone gets a product somewhat workable the Chinese copy it and sell it at a fraction of the cost. This happened with a thin film solar manufacturing plant that I worked on in Austin, as soon as they were going to market with a product the Chinese copied their design and flooded the market and cut their legs out from underneath them. China lets other people do the R&D and the state sponsor theft of technology and subsidizes the manufacture until a company can turn a profit. Until costs in China rise to the point of being similar this will happen with most of the new technology that people hope will be the future.

[okie52]

The problem developing alternative energy technologies is as soon as someone gets a product somewhat workable the Chinese copy it and sell it at a fraction of the cost. This happened with a thin film solar manufacturing plant that I worked on in Austin, as soon as they were going to market with a product the Chinese copied their design and flooded the market and cut their legs out from underneath them. China lets other people do the R&D and the state sponsor theft of technology and subsidizes the manufacture until a company can turn a profit. Until costs in China rise to the point of being similar this will happen with most of the new technology that people hope will be the future.

Yep, they are thieves.

[Midtowner]

And yet corporations like CHK do joint ventures with companies like Sinopec and expect everything'll be hunky dory. Once the Chinese start exploiting their reserves in Africa, etc., don't look for the price of NG to go north anytime soon.

[olevetonahill]

Yep, they are thieves.

****in gooks.

[okie52]

And yet corporations like CHK do joint ventures with companies like Sinopec and expect everything'll be hunky dory. Once the Chinese start exploiting their reserves in Africa, etc., don't look for the price of NG to go north anytime soon.

A lot of companies do business with China...and CHK remained the operator in every joint venture with China and with a carried interest at that. Even scumbag lawyers represent the Chinese in this country.

China going to develop NG reserves? That's communistic.

[okie52]

****in gooks.

:congratulatory:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If this were the case, I wonder what our country would look like today? Somehow I doubt we would have achieved the prosperity we have now. All the wealth that energy has produced has had an incalculable effect on our economy, research, efficiency, knowledge, etc. If this had all been channeled to the government it would have been a boondoggle.

The government would them completely control all our access to fuel, electricity, transportation, commerce, etc. They'd also have been in charge of countless offshoots and byproducts of the energy business. Plastics, films, chemicals, who knows what all would have their R&D tied to government bureaucracies.

Sounds like a nightmare. We'd be like Venezuela or Russia right now.We could easily be behind both (compared to the development of both countries in today's world), since our enterepreneurs have been so involved in the discoveries and development of many of the modern conveniences and improvements.

[sappstuf]

Quit exhaling.

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/Cartoon%20Archive/April%202013%20Archive/CO2-strangler2WebCR-4_5_13.jpg

[Lott's Bandana]

Exactly. Fossil fuels are what is fueling man made global warming. If we invested the same amount of money in renewable energy, building, for example, nuclear plants which run on spent fuel, it'd be very expensive in the short run, energy would cost more, but this cheap and abundant energy is what the problem is. Producing NG like crazy is going to be a serious problem for the entire planet.

I'm confused.

That sounds like making clothes out of dryer lint.

[TAFBSooner]

I'm confused.

. . . nuclear plants which run on spent fuel . . .

That sounds like making clothes out of dryer lint.

I know most of you can explain about nuclear reactors using so-called spent fuel.

I'm going to look at this in a different way. I wonder what the fiber length of dryer lint is . . .?

[TAFBSooner]

Uh....wtf?

I know you understand the concept - it's the same thing as Obama's budget, not actually cutting spending, but cutting the rate of increase of spending.

[TAFBSooner]

Their perspective or "approach" contains little or no pragmatism to the issue. In that regard they are just as out of touch with reality as the flat earthers. US efforts towards reducing CO2 will be almost pointless without China, India and other developing countries on board and that isn't going to happen in the near future. The vacuum that the Sierra Club proposes is one that would destroy the US economy while doing little to reduce worldwide AGW.

Scientifically valid? If NG would reduce US CO2 emissions by an additional 30% in the next 20 years and it took solar and wind 40 years to do the same thing...which approach is more valid?

Of course the idea is that when solar and wind are viable alternatives they would replace NG...but you wouldn't have killed our economy in the process.

One place the Sierra Club finally moved in the right direction:



But even now it is a soft spoken, little discussed issue by the Sierra Club.

Do you think AGW would be a problem now if the world had 1 billion instead of 7 billion people. Rather than correlate the industrial revolution to AGW it should be population growth over the same period of time.

Umm, the population growth over the last two centuries is because of the industrial revolution.

Lots of our (the world's) problems would be solved if we had a lower population. But that's not going to happen because it would involve governments intruding in people's bedrooms, and we know they don't do that.

[okie52]

Umm, the population growth over the last two centuries is because of the industrial revolution.

Lots of our (the world's) problems would be solved if we had a lower population. But that's not going to happen because it would involve governments intruding in people's bedrooms, and we know they don't do that.

I would disagree with the idea the industrial revolution caused population growth. High birthrates were necessary for the world while it was an agrarian society, too, for more hands to work in the field...a problem that has driven continued over population in China and India. Improved life expectancy and a lower infant mortality would have more to do with population growth, IMO. Many times during an economic downturn you will see population birthrates decrease as you are seeing now in the US (with the exception of illegals, primarily) and Europe.

Population reduction doesn't have to be intrusive or invasive. Education and easily accessible birth control would greatly help reduce birthrates.

[TAFBSooner]

I would disagree with the idea the industrial revolution caused population growth. High birthrates were necessary for the world while it was an agrarian society, too, for more hands to work in the field...a problem that has driven continued over population in China and India. Improved life expectancy and a lower infant mortality would have more to do with population growth, IMO. Many times during an economic downturn you will see population birthrates decrease as you are seeing now in the US (with the exception of illegals, primarily) and Europe.

Population reduction doesn't have to be intrusive or invasive. Education and easily accessible birth control would greatly help reduce birthrates.

The industrial revolution led to the improved life expectancy and lower birth rate of which you speak, and to turning children from a near-term economic asset (i.e., farmhand) into a "hope for the future."

World population is on an upward trajectory that will carry us to 9 billion before it even stabilizes, much less starts declining. Education, empowerment of women, and urbanization will tend to lower the birth rate, but it's hard to see those factors bringing population down enough to combat AGW. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

That being said, I hope that the pro-choice and the pro-life among us will agree on better education and better access to birth control. At least, I can hope.

[C&CDean]

How can we have better access to birth control than we have now? Seriously?

[okie52]

The industrial revolution led to the improved life expectancy and lower birth rate of which you speak, and to turning children from a near-term economic asset (i.e., farmhand) into a "hope for the future."

World population is on an upward trajectory that will carry us to 9 billion before it even stabilizes, much less starts declining. Education, empowerment of women, and urbanization will tend to lower the birth rate, but it's hard to see those factors bringing population down enough to combat AGW. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

That being said, I hope that the pro-choice and the pro-life among us will agree on better education and better access to birth control. At least, I can hope.

Improved technology/science/medical advances led to increased life expectancy and much better infant mortality rates. If you want to say that is a byproduct of the industrial revolution then I might agree. But over 1/3 of the worlds population is located in what were backward/agrarian cultures like India and China. The good news is birthrates have dramatically dropped in China which is a cultural shift along with moving towards an industrial economy and away from an agrarian one.

I've seen as high as 13,000,000,000 before the population stabilizes. Europe and the US (unless due to immigration, legal or otherwise) have seen fertility rates drop to non sustaining levels. Developing countries will be the problem.

[okie52]

How can we have better access to birth control than we have now? Seriously?

Really talking outside the US and Europe for the most part although teens, illegals, etc... would need greater access here in the US to avoid unplanned pregnancies.

[sappstuf]

How can we have better access to birth control than we have now? Seriously?

In this country, you can't.

[TAFBSooner]

Improved technology/science/medical advances led to increased life expectancy and much better infant mortality rates. If you want to say that is a byproduct of the industrial revolution then I might agree.

Almost by definition.


But over 1/3 of the worlds population is located in what were backward/agrarian cultures like India and China. The good news is birthrates have dramatically dropped in China which is a cultural shift along with moving towards an industrial economy and away from an agrarian one.

Contraception access was a pre-requisite for China to limit births to one per couple (and no I don't agree with that policy). What's interesting is to compare China's culture (which was all about submission to the rulers long before Karl Marx could spell capitalism) with India's (which was/is not so much). India is now growing faster than China and will overtake them in population this century.

[okie52]

Almost by definition.

Except that people today in the US and Europe don't look at children as an economic plus...more of an economic liability. They aren't adding to the family wealth or income whereas in agrarian societies like China and India (until recently) still want more children to work the farms. Hell, in China they were killing female babies when the government gave the one child mandate back decades ago because a girl couldn't pull her weight on the farm like a boy could. It also still shows in our school systems and culture where schools let out for summer due to our agrarian history because farm kids did add to the family wealth. Child labor laws were specific about exempting farm kids from the laws.



Contraception access was a pre-requisite for China to limit births to one per couple (and no I don't agree with that policy). What's interesting is to compare China's culture (which was all about submission to the rulers long before Karl Marx could spell capitalism) with India's (which was/is not so much). India is now growing faster than China and will overtake them in population this century.

Yep, India is going to pass China and have more people in a much smaller area....really stupid.