Skip to main content

Night Owls Banner
George Zornick at The Nation writes Will the EPA’s Climate Plan Lead to a Counterproductive Fracking Boom?

There’s little doubt the Obama administration’s big push to cut carbon pollution, announced this week, will lead to much less coal-fired power in the United States. That’s a good thing.

But what if states instead turn to natural gas-powered electricity instead? That’s certainly what the administration would like them to do—it’s explicitly laid out as an alternative in the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, and Obama echoed that suggestion when he spoke on a conference call the day the rule was unveiled. For years, his administration has pushed natural gas as a fundamental part of America’s long-term energy strategy.

If that happens, it could be a disaster for the environment, according to some leading climate experts. Federal regulations on the extraction and transport of natural gas range from insufficient to nonexistent, and the resultant methane emissions from a bigger natural gas boom could neutralize the gains made by the EPA’s rule, and possibly even accelerate climate change in the short-term.

There are, it should be noted, significant reasons that natural gas might not become an energy source of the future, according to some analysts—but any turn away from gas will be thanks to volatile market dynamics, and not an administration heavily pushing its use. [...]


Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2007What's so hard about this?:

Let me say right off the bat for anybody who doesn't already know it: I've never served in the military in any way. Although I have been under fire a few times, and had loaded guns pointed in my face, my risk was never close to what U.S. soldiers and Marines face every day in Iraq. I've never worn body armor, even the stuff you can buy out of catalogs, or if you're wealthy enough, can have custom-made. I've never run a test lab or had to choose the best and/or lowest-bid manufacturer of a mass-produced military product.

In other words, I don't know beans about the technicalities of making body armor to keep uniformed Americans in Iraq safer (until we can get them out of where they should never have been sent in the first place).

Given my obvious ignorance of the workings of the military-industrial complex, maybe I am missing something, something really obvious, or some itsy-bitsy arcane detail. If so, I'll be pleased if some high mucketymuck—civilian or military— can explain to me why it is that nobody at the Pentagon seems to want to do a side-by-side test of two kinds of body armor, each of the manufacturers of which say theirs is the best
.
Because—correct me if I'm wrong—no matter what one thinks about the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the people who concocted it—and what I think would require asbestos pixels to fully convey—nobody here wants American troops to go into harm's way without the best protection that our $8.4 billion a month in expenditures can buy. Right? And, no matter what our views of the machinery and machinations of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the way to know whether it is the best protection is to run a fair test. Right? […]



Tweet of the Day
According to Twitter, @CIA is only following 25 people. So chill about your precious civil rights already.
@Wolfrum



On today's Kagro in the Morning show: the flip-flopping Bergdahl tweets from conservatives. Heartbleed redux! Are your selfies helping the NSA build a facial recognition database? Baseless speculation about "driverless cars!" Armando joins in to discuss emptywheel's synthesis of the O'Hehir and Moglen surveillance articles we pondered last week: "What If the Democratic Response to Snowden Is to Expand Surveillance?"




High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  methane emissions from fracking (5+ / 0-)

      which is really an oil production revolution, not a natural gas one, leaks more methane than the EPA has previously stated.  This means that fracking for oil releases more greenhose gasses into the atmosphere than keystone oil sands and even worse than burning coal.

      California has a dirtier power grid than Kentucky on a per kwh basis due to the methane emissions from texas and lousiana.

      when methane emissions are more properly accounted for and included in the EPA emissions standards we will see a dramatic change.

      until then, we will see the U.S. working harder and harder to destroy her grandchildren.

      Be the change that you want to see in the world

      by New Minas on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:15:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You said: (4+ / 0-)
        This means that fracking for oil releases more greenhose gasses into the atmosphere than keystone oil sands and even worse than burning coal.
        That is a pretty bold claim with no numeric basis stated at all for it, or even a recognizable means of making comparisons between different hydrocarbon recovery systems.   In order to do that, you'd have to quantify the amount of emissions in a manner that there was an agreed upon method of actually comparing these systems for greenhouse gas emission production intensity purposes.   But you haven't done anything of the sort in your declaratory statement.
      •  Tell me about it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue in NC

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:28:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What? I don't believe CA is dirtier than Kentucky (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Minas

        How do methane emissions from Texas and Lousiana have anything to do with the CA grid? Do you mean TX and LA are so dirty that any power from them grossly contaminates any power they send to CA?      

        Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 401.25 ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

        by Zinman on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:35:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we get our (0+ / 0-)

          natural gas from Texas,

          flyover sampling of air has shown that the leakrates are 3 to 10 times higher than the current EPA estimates for these wells:

          http://www.fraw.org.uk/...

          methane is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year timeline (37 times worse on a 100-year timeline)

          being dirty means destroying the earth's ecosystem.  California is currently warming the planet faster on a per-kwh basis than Kentucky.

          Be the change that you want to see in the world

          by New Minas on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:30:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  from the linked paper (0+ / 0-)
            Given the large greenhouse warming potential of CH4, an 8.8% leak rate of natural gas
            during production negates any climate benefit of natural gas from this basin for electricity
            generation compared to coal and oil 3,4

            Be the change that you want to see in the world

            by New Minas on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:32:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is absurd (0+ / 0-)

            TX and LA are the polluters, not CA.

            Fracking and coal are the problem. KY wants to keep digging up ultra polluting coal, we need to stop that. Why are you defending it?

            Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 401.25 ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

            by Zinman on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:38:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

              just like when we import steel from china. . . we don't pollute the atmosphere, it is china doing the polluting!

              The methane that you use for the electricity that you buy from your utility (if you live in California) comes through a process that is warming the global atmosphere much more quickly than the coal fired power plants of Kentucky.

              Be the change that you want to see in the world

              by New Minas on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:43:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Accounting fraud (0+ / 0-)

        Oil, gas, and coal that have not yet been removed from the ground are counted as assets as though they were already out of the ground for purposes of business and banking collateral. "I will gladly pay you Tuesday, using some petro-product which may be unrecoverable, if you lend me some money today." How many trillions of dollars are there?

        The same scam in slightly different form is the basis for many speculative real estate deals. Look around yourself, at the incomplete building projects or empty lots where buildings were torn down and people dislocated to accomplish a swindler's dream.

    •  No Fracking Way! EPA Admissions Regulations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Eric Nelson

      Just the beginning. Because after Pres retires from office, we're gonna elect another Democratic President who's even more environmentally pro-active.

      2014 Midterm Elections Action Alert/Even More Political Activism Needed ♥ A Very Busy Year
      Just Say No, to spectra energy's New Jersey/New York City natural gas transportation pipeline!
      Still no news of a decision from the Appellate Court. No news, is good news. It's a big decision, involves the lives of millions of New Yorkers and New Jersey residents.

      Occupy The Pipeline 2012

      Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

      by rebel ga on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:25:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  1,030,295 registered users on dKos now. (10+ / 0-)

    Here are the 10 newest registered users on dKos.  Hope to see their comments and diaries here soon!  (If they're not spammers.)

    James3682sfr0
    Lynelle9442mcq2
    kittyjoy22 (user #1,030,288: already banned)
    Andrew1616lhd6
    Zen and the Birds
    Ranbeer21 (user #1,030,291: spammer)
    Andrew4050bxs2
    Ethan8494gcx4
    Alexander3208qzh1
    DiogenesTex


    And since our society is obsessed with numbers that end in a lot of zeros as milestones, here's a special shoutout to users:
    #1,029,100: Jacksonville5161bxs2 (spammer)
    #1,029,200: Archi
    #1,029,300: John9404mjk9 (spammer)
    #1,029,400: Noah3704bpf5 (spammer)
    #1,029,500: Andrew9368lyl7
    #1,029,600: Terrygilsonb84 (spammer)
    #1,029,700: Aiden3838ohz4
    #1,029,800: Alexander7899trn5
    #1,029,900: bobbycorsica
    #1,030,000: Josephholmgren1 (spammer)
    #1,030,100: Aiden4544kwn5
    #1,030,200: William7036cpc3

    We've added 1,214 more users in the last three days.  There's definitely been a recent increase in spammers in the last couple weeks.


    And for your Diary Rescue music pleasure, here's Stevie Wonder's "I Wish".

  •  Have a great weekend everyone! (9+ / 0-)

    “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:33:20 PM PDT

  •  ultimately it's still about institutional power (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Aunt Pat, Jeff Y, LinSea, Eric Nelson

    and Big Energy that since deregulation is less like a public utility and more like a corporate ATM  

    There are, it should be noted, significant reasons that natural gas might not become an energy source of the future, according to some analysts—but any turn away from gas will be thanks to volatile market dynamics, and not an administration heavily pushing its use.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:39:40 PM PDT

  •  Fracking will do itself in... (6+ / 0-)

    ...from local restrictions on water use, to the need to refracture to keep the gas flowing. What we really need is to get more biogas use.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:40:12 PM PDT

  •  MSNBC: D-Day & veterans (7+ / 0-)

    Rachel talked about D-Day with Michael Beschloss and looked at the GOP's hypocrisy over the VA scandal.

    Instead of the usual programming, Chris had an in-depth special today all about the state of Kansas, and what's become of it, based on previous segments that have aired over the past month.

    Rachel also covered the insane Texas GOP platform with Wayne Slater, and had an update on the crazy Mississippi Senate race.

    Ed talked about D-Day with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

    And he covered the Bowe Bergdahl reaction from the GOP with Bruce Bartlett.

    Ed also looked at the South Dakota Senate race with Democratic candidate Rick Weiland.  He also shared the breaking news that gay marriage was ruled legal in Wisconsin, barring any more attempts by Republicans to block it.  He blasted Richard Land for excusing homophobia, and talked with Lionel about the Texas GOP platform

  •  New HBO documentary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, Mary Mike, dharmasyd, citizenx, TFinSF

    The Case Against 8.  Looks powerful.

  •  EPA's Regs Will ENCOURAGE a Fracking Boom But (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, Aunt Pat, LinSea, joe from Lowell

    not "lead to" it. The economics and the entirety of our system are what lead to it. I'm not sure the EPA regs constitute much more than a little extra excuse.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:46:46 PM PDT

    •  The Obama fracking boom is already here. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      The EPA rules just recognize what his administration explicitly set out to accomplish:

      100% of the shale gas and tight oil growth under Obama comes from fracking.

      Further, under Obama, American coal production is also up. It is pointless and cynical to restrict our own coal burning while accelerating our extraction of our entire supply -- which we ship for profit to be burned in China and India. Oh, but those emissions are their fault, of course, not ours.

      Obama is playing the usual American game. Promote minor emission cutbacks that do not come remotely close to the US target to slow global warming while extracting all our remaining fossil fuels to sell for profit and to promote American geo-political ambitions in Asia, Europe (Ukraine), and around the world.

      We deserve better.

  •  Despite Fukushima you get the impression (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, Aunt Pat, citizenx

    that if Gas is rejected the nukes crowd will seize the opportunity.  

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:47:49 PM PDT

    •  Nukes take 9 years or more... (8+ / 0-)

      ...to build. Wind farms take two or three years, and are already producing power as the first turbines go online. Which would you want?

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:56:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wind. (6+ / 0-)

        Just sayin how it seems to me to how it will most likely play out.

        I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

        by JML9999 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:18:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I live in Illinois... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Y, JML9999, Eric Nelson

          ...where a considerable amount of electricity is generated by aging nuclear fission plants. Nobody seems to want to reprocess all of our caked spent fuel and load it into any new plants. Heck, they shut down, decommissioned, and dismantled the newest plant in Zion, rather than trying to rebuild it.

          If Exelon ain't trying to build new in Illinois, they aren't going to try any where else.

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:26:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exelon has been complaining that wind farms (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW
            If Exelon ain't trying to build new in Illinois, they aren't going to try any where else.
            have been undercutting the price that the company gets for its nuclear power.  That isn't strictly true; there isn't enough wind power yet to really make a difference and the competition is mainly from gas turbines burning cheap fracked gas.  But anyone who knows even a little about how wholesale electricity is paid for understands that the handwriting is on the wall.  

            I could maybe see building new nukes in the Old South, which has a truly pathetic wind resource.  However, if wind turbines continue to improve it will soon be clearly cheaper to bring wind power to the South via high voltage direct current (HVDC) power lines from the Northeast and Midwest rather than run nukes locally.  In return, the South could install a few bazillion photovoltaic panels and run their excess sunshine north to power Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburg and New York.  

            "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

            by Calamity Jean on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:11:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I should add that, driving from Chicago... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JML9999, annieli

          ...to Coles County, IL, along I-57, I observed that it is quite windy. At the time (2005), there were no wind farms in Illinois. There is plenty of wind, though, and more wind farms should go up to take advantage of it.

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:46:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Christopher Cantwell... (7+ / 0-)

    the Ron Paul nutjobs, wrote this about the shooter in Canada who murdered three police officers there.

    Seems to me this all could have been avoided if the neighbor had minded her own business. Seems to me Justin was really upset about gun control, and wouldn’t have bothered anybody if his means of self defense were not threatened. Seems to me that when armed men show up to confiscate your weapons, killing them is a pretty clear cut case of self defense. I have yet to hear about an innocent victim here, only combatants in a war against freedom giving up their lives to their deity, the State.
    Because that's how these people think.
    •  Oh wow (0+ / 0-)

      How does Clint Eastwood always manage to make movies that I never hear about until right before they come out?

      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

      by moviemeister76 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:38:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I believe fracking is already speeding warming (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, LinSea, Jeff Y, blue in NC, JeffW

    The natural gas boom has been going on for a decade and suddenly scientists are noting that climate change is moving much more quickly than earlier models predicted. Coincidence?

    The only upside to this is that methane is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, but this boon could be a disaster.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:51:41 PM PDT

    •  I think the gas leaks and flares from... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, LinSea, Jeff Y, Eric Nelson

      ...the Bakken oil fields are also accelerating melting, too.

      That gas could be used for power production if someone put in the piping. But nooooooo!

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:59:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Flares at hydrocarbon extraction sites (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Pat, Jeff Y, enemy of the people

        are the method of control to address release of methane and other produced hydrocarbons.

        If there is no way available to either market recovered gas, including treatment of sour gas, and no way is provided to gain energy recovery (which is something that is going to have to be imposed as a new BACT requirement on the oil and gas industry), then flare systems are the last resort from allowing uncontrolled release of produced hydrocarbons.....but note also, the uncontrolled release of petroleum hydrocarbons does not mean that there is no process control at all over the gaseous output of hydrocarbon recovery wells and related extraction process equipment.

        The present of sour gas complicates this picture and affects regulation of sulfur dioxide emissions from flaring.

        When you have large hydrocarbon recovery field in a state where the regulation of the oil and gas industry is poor, like in Utah, and you see that there are not flares either installed or operating, that means that methane emissions from leaks and from process equipment is released uncontrolled....and that bad.

        Flaring waste gas that can't be used for whatever physical reason is always preferable for greenhouse gas emission control purposes over operating an uncontrolled greenhouse gas-emitting process....like thos Uintah hyrocarbon recovery fields with no flares that I wrote about.

        The complicating factor in all of this is the total reduced sulfur content of field gas, which can be a direct threat during uncontrolled release, or can lead to sulfur dioxide emissions from flares.

        •  There's plenty of technology... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Y, Eric Nelson, kosta

          ...that can sweeten natural gas. I remember that the byproduct of that, sulfur prills, was so voluminous that they were experimenting with using sulfur as a binder for concrete, back in the 70's, amongst other uses. The oil companies just don't want to bother, that's all.

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:31:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Nelson
            The oil companies just don't want to bother, that's all.
            When it comes to sour gas, this really isn't a realistic portrayal since screwing up with sour gas in oil/gas extraction quickly leads to serious site safety and environmental problems.

            If the field gas is sour, that means that every condensate tank will be an H2S process emission source.   In sour gas fields it is common to establish a star-cluster conguration of wells pad sites to gas sweetening plants to remove sulfur....most often with Claus Process sulfur recovery units.

            The problem situations come when gas is sour and you end up with uncontrolled venting of H2S from petroleum liquid storage tanks that cannot handle unstable liquids containing H2S without releasing such emissions uncontrolled through tanks vents that are installed without directing the gas to a flare control system.

            •  Well, flaring occasionally verses... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson

              ...flaring continuously should be a no-brainer, and the problem you mention with H2S being present in liquids is still there, whether you recover and sweeten the gas, or not.

              Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

              by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:16:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The generation of waste gas at hydrocarbon (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eric Nelson

                recovery and extraction sites isn't a batch-driven process, unless you're separating out flowback periods from production periods for a source like a condensate tank or flowback tank.

                There may be some event (and thus batch-driven) emissions from pseumatic controllers, but those emissions can be directed to a site flare system.

                The real question for air pollution control stewardship and for Democrats to be considering is what workable requirement for energy recovery can be imposed on the oil and gas industry to get increased amounts of either hydrocarbon recovery efficiency or overall system energy recovery efficiency.

                In situations where large amounts of gas are being flared from hydrocarbon liquids production because there are no means available to pipe those gases to market, then the task and question for environmental stewardship becomes.....What energy recovery is technically feasible?

                It certainly is technically feasible to develop portable electric generation based on natural gas fired internal combustion engine.   The idea would be to require such site electric generation capability as part of your overall flare control system.    With such a system, the gas-fired IC engine powers a generator and is designed to take a maximum amount of site gas manifold system volume and the flare would get rest beyond the capability of the IC engine.   The electricity could be used onsite by the operator, or it could be put on the electric grid....since it is far more likely that electric lines will be available than long distance gas pipelines.

    •  Short-lived comparatively but long enough... (9+ / 0-)

      ...potent enough if delivered to the atmosphere in ample quantities to speed things up even more. It's already apparent that we have passed the tipping point what with Antarctica's ice shelves melting. The question is how fast they will melt. Will it take the centuries experts are saying? It wasn't too long ago, when their information wasn't so good, that they were saying it would be a very long time before we would be seeing what we are now seeing, decades sooner than expected. Would anyone be surprised if Antarctica turned out the same way? Ever greater released of unburned methane into the atmosphere could accelerate that melt and all the other impacts global warming will bring us. Sooner than eventually.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:11:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you said: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeff Y, enemy of the people
        Ever greater released of unburned methane into the atmosphere could accelerate that melt and all the other impacts global warming will bring us. Sooner than eventually.
        Since EPA's air emission regulations will get considerable indirect control of methane releases, there isn't likely to be an increasing trend for total United States methane emissions for this source category, even with the expansion of the industry.

        State rules like those in Colorado will also achieve additional methane control, and will have the side benefit of increasing control of hydrogen sulfide as well.

        •  I'll believe it when I see it. Until we have... (7+ / 0-)

          ...emission-unit monitors on every fracking operation we won't even know how much methane is being emitted by the process.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:32:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you don't believe the science? (0+ / 0-)

            I've personally met people from the EPA. They aren't
            making stuff up. I've also met 'environmentalists' who DO make things up.
            I've know oil and gas guys who hate the EPA and the government while drilling on government land ( like the Macondo BP guys)and think they are on a mission from God to foul the planet.

            Those guys love it when you hate the government.

            •  What science are you talking about?... (6+ / 0-)

              ...That industry can reduce its methane emissions? I am sure it can. The question is, will it? And how will we know that it has successfully done so?

              Although I maintain a deep distrust of the BIA, I don't hate the government, certainly not EPA. But I also understand its limitations. Which means I do hate the fact that the EPA accepts the industry's tally of how much methane is leaking from its fracking and other operations. Not only accepts but publishes it without any caveat about its potential for inaccuracy. That's not science. Scientists take their own measurements. Regulators likewise. EPA is both.

              I don't blame the EPA for its budgetary and political constraints in such matters. But I also recognize the very real problem with accepting the word of industry.

              As a journalist, I covered energy and environmentally related energy stories for a total of about 15 years at several publications. I had extensive contact with EPA employees, many of whom were highly skilled and wholeheartedly dedicated to the agency's mission, and some of whom were passionless cogs bored and sloppy in their work. Same as a lot of places.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:45:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What you're hating.... (0+ / 0-)
                Which means I do hate the fact that the EPA accepts the industry's tally of how much methane is leaking from its fracking and other operations. Not only accepts but publishes it without any caveat about its potential for inaccuracy. That's not science. Scientists take their own measurements. Regulators likewise. EPA is both.
                ....is legally required reporting of emission inventories by regulated parties.   The entire air pollution control system of the United States is based on emitters reporting their emissions based on emission factors that are accepted or demonstrated.   Emission reports ARE the responsibility of those who are CAA-regulated, and that has been the law of the United States for over 40 years.

                I think you have to revise and sharpen the manner of framing the issue to a point where you have an alternative vision of air pollution control stewardship if you want to call the shot on the regulation of the oil and gas industry.   The other problem here is that regulation of existing sources is up to the states under the Clean Air Act......that is how Ed Muskie designed the setup, and it isn't different for greenhouse gases than it is for criteria pollutants....as to state-federal relationships on who does what under the Clean Air Act.

                •  Gobbledygook (0+ / 0-)
                  I think you have to revise and sharpen the manner of framing the issue to a point where you have an alternative vision of air pollution control stewardship if you want to call the shot on the regulation of the oil and gas industry.
                  Might want to break that sentence down into smaller pieces.

                  It is not easy to see what you are not looking for, or to know what it is you do not know.

                  by kosta on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:07:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the other problem if we're practicing (0+ / 0-)

                Ed Muskie-style environmental regulatory stewardship.   In recent days the DC Circuit did this....

                http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/...

                ....striking down a policy EPA had for dealing with the oil/gas industry counter attack on the matter of Title V permits for oil/gas extraction sector.  

                Title V permits require specific period emission or parameter  monitoring to achieve verification of emissions.   However, in the Sixth Circuit in a case from Michigan called "Summit Petroleum" a divided panel of that court erased a 30 year interpretation of the meaning of "adjacent" emission units as this issue relates to aggregation of major sources for Title V operating permit applicability purposes.   This decision effectively killed Title V permit regulation of the oil and gas industry in the Sixth Circuit states.   This is a case completely missed by the environmental movement because they're too busy watching Gasland say the oil and gas industry is exempt from the Clean Air Act to bother with real reality.

                My point is that the principle path to enforcing monitoring requirements on the oil/gas extraction sector for Clean Air Act issues is in serious trouble with court decisions.....and the environmental movement is being completed feckless about this serious issue.  {i.e. leaving undefended challenges by industry, not intervening, ineffective advocacy, etc.)

          •  Some emission units can be monitored and others (0+ / 0-)

            cannot.   For example, there isn't any technically feasible of monitoring the totality of unburned methane emissions from flare stacks.  

            For something like a flare, the fundamental assurance of emission control is achieved by parameter monitoring and by the design of the control and flaring system. That would include such things as monitoring total gas volume rate directed towards a flare or monitoring the presence of a pilot flame in the flare or capability of electric ignitors.

            For flares, process control efficacy is demonstrated by a one time stack test that determines (and effectively limits) the gas exit velocity and the gas BTU content.

            Other process units that have waste gases directed to a flare don't have atmospheric discharge release points that can monitored.

            The general philosophy of emission control stewardship is to collect, site-wide, all waste-gas=generating processes into one or more closed vent systems and direct all of the flow to flare control if the gas cannot be collected for marketing.

        •  That covers only the well-head!! (0+ / 0-)

          I was watching something recently that featured a crew that goes around measuring methane concentrations in the air. They were on a street in Washington, DC, and found readings that were outrageously high....according to these scientist, the  only reason there wasn't an explosion was that the O2 levels weren't high enough for combustion.

          The whole system is rife with leakage. It happens at the well-head, and EPA will be requiring stringent controls Of course, even there, that may be a mirage, depending on where the measurement is taken...or, even if there will be serious monitoring. This team also noted that levels vary widely in around a gas field, so the system is easily gamed if a stationary monitor is used. However, there's so much leakage in the delivery system that it may not matter what controls EPA puts on drillers.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:34:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Antarctica melting CAN still be slowed if we ACT. (0+ / 0-)

        While the new findings are dire, the NASA scientist behind them is talking of a speciic region, not all Antarctica:

        We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable...What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.
        The scientist goes on to argue we can save Antarctica ice by slowing or stopping global warming NOW:
        Controlling climate warming may ultimately make a difference not only about how fast West Antarctic ice will melt to sea, but also whether other parts of Antarctica will take their turn.
    •  More quickly? (0+ / 0-)

      Sez who?

      The natural gas boom has been going on for a decade and suddenly scientists are noting that climate change is moving much more quickly than earlier models predicted. Coincidence?
      Got some links?
  •  For your Friday night amusement :) (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, JeffW, Aunt Pat, Just Bob, Khun David

    Sometimes it's fun to just take a step back from politics and have a good laugh at the devolution of the Conservative movement. I live in a red county and this is the kind of 'Letter to the Editor' that the local Tea Party cranks send to the local newspaper almost every week.

    This is 100% pure Teabagger gold!

    Letter: Mainstream media attacks Obama critics:

    At one time I believed that the Republicans were cowards for not questioning the buffoonery and incompetence of President Barack Obama’s administration.

    I have since changed my mind.

    The mainstream media are no longer acting as a watchdog, at least while the Democrats are in charge, and instead have become advocacy and protective journalists.

    While the media have finally awakened with the Veterans Administration and traitors-for-hostages “scandals,” they have taken a pass on Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS targeting of conservative groups, and other obvious lies.

    It is impossible to name any person, Republican or otherwise, who had the courage to criticize Obama who hasn’t been savaged and attacked.

    Some are calling for the Republicans to call for Obama’s impeachment. Don’t do it!

    It would eat up all of the media oxygen, and you will be portrayed as hating racists who always wanted his impeachment from the start.  

    http://www.daily-chronicle.com/...

    “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:52:11 PM PDT

  •  Fracking defenders trend to be climate deniers (6+ / 0-)

    the Climate Denier List

    This guy is typical;

    This is one of their websites;

    Ten Fracking Things Everyone Should Know

    These guys are all in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. mercenaries.  Either we defeat them or it's the end of the world as we know it.  If I had progeny I would be very angry.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:53:50 PM PDT

    •  Believe Energy Cornucopia And Economic Apocalypse (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Shockwave

      I notice that the same people that believe America sits on unlimited energy are also likely to believe in a looming economic/zombie apocalypse, as if these things weren't largely contradictory.

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:05:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So many logical fallacies in Zornick's article... (5+ / 0-)

    ...it's really hard to know where to begin?

    The premise is that by Obama regulating out coal usage via CO2 regulations, the result will be an increase in natural gas usage to the void.

    The good is that natural gas, per unit energy yielded, yields a fraction of the CO2 of coal. That's good. But natural gas means fracking, and it means (at present) CH4 leakage from poorly regulated wells. CH4 is a far more potent (10^2) green house gas than CO2, so even a fraction of well CH4 loss is problematic. That's bad.

    Everyone should watch "Years of Living Dangerously" Season 1, Episode 6. Disclaimer: I have worked with Prof. Ingraffea, who conducted the study on CH4 leakage from fracking wells.

    Zornick, if course, is wrong. It's not that fracking isn't bad. It is. But coal is worse. Full stop.

    Moreover natural gas can be regulated and improved, relatively speaking. Coal cannot.

    First, you regulate out coal. Then you regulate fracking well leakage. Then you continue to subsidize wind and solar. The US generates far more wind power than any other country by far. The US has the largest solar installation by far. Subsidies work. Continue them and increase them. And unless you're willing to entertain nuclear, you have to solve the problem of what to do at night when the wind isn't blowing.


    ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

    by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:03:06 PM PDT

    •  You solve the problem of wind intermittency... (8+ / 0-)

      ...by building in extra capacity across the country, and tying everthing together with high-voltage direct-current trunks. No need for nuclear power.

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:12:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since MOST electricity generated by wind... (6+ / 0-)

      ...turbines is produced at night, that's no argument for nuclear. That would be true even if it weren't the case because techniques for storing power for wind and solar are well known: getting them established is the problem.

      Here's the 2012 average hour-by-hour wind-generated electricity for the Midwest ISO.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:30:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As you say, they are not established. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        And I'm not sure what happened to the super cooled HVDC project planned for Texas/New Mexico.

        None of this is an argument for nuclear power per se. In the near future, you will need to solve the transmission and storage problem.

        But the answer is not to turn back to coal.


        ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

        by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:20:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No. You do NOT ramp up ANOTHER dirty fossil- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rithmck

      fuel energy source, building an extraction infrastructure and a generation infrastructure with 50-year depreciation schedules that the industry will then whine about retiring.

      I would rather see the industry modernize the occasional coal plant rather than build one new dirty natural gas plant, along with the absolutely devastating fracking that is necessary to supply that gas plant.

      Frankly, I believe that the US could meet all its new electricity needs through construction of only new wind and solar generation capacity, and relegating the existing fossil and nuclear generation capacity to providing nighttime and other load-leveling power. Infrastructure as prosaic as point-of-use generation, not limited to massive solar panels on the roofs of huge factories, server farms, and warehouses, but including utility-owned solar and even wind facilities on single-family residences should be the goal of electric utilities! The point-of-use generation has the added advantage of experiencing far less transmission loss.

      But please, let us STOP this crazy talk of ramping up natural-gas electricity generation as a new, clean, miracle cure to the US electricity addiction, or even as a wonderful "transition" solution. It's not. It is filthy and destructive. The idea of replacing coal with natural gas - even "temporarily" - is about as sensible as an alcoholic treating his addiction by switching from gin to vodka.

      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

      by blue in NC on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:06:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't have a choice. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell

        Natural gas is far cleaner than coal, and neither the transmission infrastructure nor the generating capacity nor the storage technology are there for solar and wind yet. And they won't be there for a while. So you have to pick coal, oil, gas, or nuclear to fill the stop gap.


        ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

        by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:23:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think what's what we are talking about. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue in NC, JeffW
        But please, let us STOP this crazy talk of ramping up natural-gas electricity generation as a new, clean, miracle cure to the US electricity addiction, or even as a wonderful "transition" solution.
        A lot of gas-fired electrical generating capacity already exists; no more should be built, but what's already here might as well be used during the transition to renewables.  

        The way it should work is that as solar and wind are built, gas generators are shut down a few at a time because they aren't needed right then, but they are held in "cold standby" in case they are needed in the future.  Occasionally a coal or nuke plant is shut down permanently, and when that happens gas generation is required to replace it's power for a while.  But more wind and solar are installed, so the gas generators are again taken out of service.  

        In other words, solar & wind go up only, coal & nukes go down only, and gas goes up & down to cover the difference but never more than what exists right now.  Eventually there's enough solar & wind that along with efficiency all of our electrical power needs are met, and all fossil fueled power plants are shut permanently.

        "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

        by Calamity Jean on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:30:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Many people ARE talking about natural gas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          as the "miracle cure"!

          Your comment, OTOH, is pretty much in line with my thinking.

          The natural gas industry is in the midst of one of the biggest propaganda campaigns I've ever witnessed, and it appears to be working to some extent. I have a friend - exceedingly liberal, I'd put him almost as leftie as I am - who started talking a year or two ago about how we need to start using natural gas for everything:  cars, power plants, etc. It was very hard to convince him of the disaster he was advocating, even as the apocalyptic results of fracking are becoming more and more evident, and I couldn't figure out where he was coming from.

          Then one day I was visiting him and he was watching MSNBC - he watches it for hours per day, while I simply don't watch the TeeVee - and the "clean natural gas for America's future" ads were running relentlessly. It was such bullshit, but that pretty blue flame and all those smiling 'Murkin faces and happy children and flowers and pretty wildlife were a really hard propaganda sell. It was disgusting.

          So, I fear the effectiveness of this propaganda campaign in convincing people to put a lot more long-term stock in new natural gas extraction and new natural gas infrastructure. People need to wake up and resist that propaganda!

          "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

          by blue in NC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:10:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anyone who thinks natural gas is a "miracle cure" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW, blue in NC

            is simply wrong.  It's not.  It has less carbon per BTU, but it's still fossil carbon and still dangerous.  Natural gas would still be dangerous even if there was NO leakage around well-drilling, wells, and pipelines.  

            I'm glad we agree.  

            "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

            by Calamity Jean on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:34:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  6-6-2014 (7+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    PRESIDENT OBAMA:  President Hollande; to the people of France; friends; the family; our veterans:
    If prayer were made of sound, the skies over England that night would have deafened the world.

    Captains paced their decks.  Pilots tapped their gauges.  Commanders pored over maps, fully aware that for all the months of meticulous planning, everything could go wrong -- the winds, the tides, the element of surprise -- and above all, the audacious bet that what waited on the other side of the Channel would compel men not to shrink away, but to charge ahead.

    Fresh-faced GIs rubbed trinkets, kissed pictures of sweethearts, checked and re-checked their equipment. “God,” asked one, “give me guts.”  And in the pre-dawn hours, planes rumbled down runways; gliders and paratroopers slipped through the sky; giant screws began to turn on an armada that looked like more ships than sea.  And more than 150,000 souls set off towards this tiny sliver of sand upon which hung more than the fate of a war, but rather the course of human history.

    President Hollande, distinguished guests, I’m honored to return here today to pay tribute to the men and women of a generation who defied every danger -- among them, our veterans of D-Day.  And, gentlemen, we are truly humbled by your presence here today.  

    Just last week, I received a letter from a French citizen.  

    “Dear Mr. President, and the American people,” he wrote, “[we are] honored to welcome you… to thank you again for all the pain and efforts of [the] American people and others in our common struggle for freedom.”

    Today, we say the same to the people of France.  Thank you, especially, for the generosity that you’ve shown the Americans who’ve come here over the generations -- to these beaches, and to this sacred place of rest for 9,387 Americans.  

    At the end of the war, when our ships set off for America, filled with our fallen, tens of thousands of liberated Europeans turned out to say farewell, and they pledged to take care of the more than 60,000 Americans who would remain in cemeteries on this continent.  In the words of one man, we will take care of the fallen “as if their tombs were our children’s.”  And the people of France, you have kept your word like the true friends you are.  We are forever grateful.  

    Here, we don’t just commemorate victory, as proud of that victory as we are.  We don’t just honor sacrifice, as grateful as the world is.  We come to remember why America and our allies gave so much for the survival of liberty at its moment of maximum peril.  We come to tell the story of the men and women who did it so that it remains seared into the memory of a future world.

    We tell this story for the old soldiers who pull themselves a little straighter today to salute brothers who never made it home.  We tell the story for the daughter who clutches a faded photo of her father, forever young; for the child who runs his fingers over colorful ribbons he knows signify something of great consequence, even if he doesn’t yet fully understand why.  

    We tell this story to bear what witness we can to what happened when the boys from America reached Omaha Beach.

    By daybreak, blood soaked the water, bombs broke the sky.  Thousands of paratroopers had dropped into the wrong landing sites; thousands of rounds bit into flesh and sand.  Entire companies’ worth of men fell in minutes.  “Hell’s Beach” had earned its name.

    By 8:30 a.m., General Omar Bradley expected our troops to be a mile inland.  “Six hours after the landings,” he wrote, “we held only ten yards of beach.”  In this age of instant commentary, the invasion would have swiftly and roundly been declared, as it was by one officer, “a debacle.”

    But such a race to judgment would not have taken into account the courage of free men.  “Success may not come with rushing speed,” President Roosevelt would say that night, “but we shall return again and again.”  

    And paratroopers fought through the countryside to find one another.  Rangers pulled themselves over those cliffs to silence Nazi guns.  To the west, Americans took Utah Beach with relative ease.  To the east, the British tore through the coast, fueled by the fury of five years of bombs over London and a solemn vow to “fight them on the beaches.”  

    The Canadians, whose shores had not been touched by war, drove far into France.  And here, at Omaha, troops who finally made it to the seawall used it as shelter -- where a general barked, “If you’re Rangers… lead the way!”

    By the end of that longest day, this beach had been fought, lost, refought, and won -- a piece of Europe once again liberated and free.  Hitler’s Wall was breached, letting loose Patton’s Army to pour into France.  Within a week, the world’s bloodiest beach had become the world’s busiest port.  Within a month, one million Allied troops thundered through Normandy into Europe, and as our armies marched across the continent, one pilot said it looked “as if the very crust of the Earth had shaken loose.”  The Arc de Triomphe lit up for the first time in years, and Paris was punctuated by shouts of “Vive la France!” and “Vive les États-Unis!”  

    Of course, even as we gather here at Normandy, we remember that freedom’s victory was also made possible by so many others who wore America’s uniform.  Two years before he commanded armies, Eisenhower’s troops sliced through North Africa.  Three times before D-Day, our GIs stormed the beaches at Sicily, Salerno, Anzio.  Divisions like the Fighting 36th brawled their way through Italy, fighting through the mud for months, marching through towns past waving children before opening the gates to Rome.  As the “dogfaces” marched to victory in Europe, the Devil Dogs -- the Marines -- clawed their way from island to island in the Pacific, in some of the war’s fiercest fighting.  And back home, an army of women -- including my grandmother -- rolled up their sleeves to help build a mighty arsenal of democracy.

    But it was here, on these shores, that the tide was turned in that common struggle for freedom.  What more powerful manifestation of America’s commitment to human freedom than the sight of wave after wave after wave of young men boarding those boats to liberate people they had never met?
    We say it now as if it couldn’t be any other way.  But in the annals of history, the world had never seen anything like it.  And when the war was won, we claimed no spoils of victory -- we helped Europe rebuild.  We claimed no land other than the earth where we buried those who gave their lives under our flag and where we station those who still serve under it.  

    But America’s claim -- our commitment -- to liberty, our claim to equality, our claim to freedom and to the inherent dignity of every human being -- that claim is written in the blood on these beaches, and it will endure for eternity.
    Omaha -- Normandy -- this was democracy’s beachhead.  And our victory in that war decided not just a century, but shaped the security and well-being of all posterity.  We worked to turn old adversaries into new allies.  We built new prosperity.  We stood once more with the people of this continent through a long twilight struggle until finally a wall tumbled down, and an Iron Curtain, too.  And from Western Europe to East, from South America to Southeast Asia -- 70 years of democratic movement spread.  And nations that once knew only the blinders of fear began to taste the blessings of freedom.

    None of that would have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met and ideals they couldn’t live without.
    None of it would have happened without the troops President Roosevelt called “the life-blood of America… the hope of the world.”

    (snip)

    Whenever the world makes you cynical, stop and think of these men.  Whenever you lose hope, stop and think of these men.

    Think of Wilson Colwell, who was told he couldn’t pilot a plane without a high school degree, so he decided to jump out of a plane instead.  And he did, here on D-Day, with the 101st Airborne when he was just 16 years old.

    Think of Harry Kulkowitz, the Jewish son of Russian immigrants, who fudged his age at enlistment so he could join his friends in the fight.  And don’t worry, Harry, the statute of limitations has expired.  (Laughter.)  Harry came ashore at Utah Beach on D-Day.  And now that he’s come back, we said he could have anything he wants for lunch today -- he helped liberate this coast, after all.  But he said a hamburger would do fine.  (Laughter.)  What’s more American than that?

    Think of “Rock” Merritt, who saw a recruitment poster asking him if he was man enough to be a paratrooper -- so he signed up on the spot.  And that decision landed him here on D-Day with the 508th regiment, a unit that would suffer heavy casualties.  And 70 years later, it’s said that all across Fort Bragg, they know Rock -- not just for his exploits on D-Day, or his 35 years in the Army, but because 91-year-old Rock Merritt still spends his time speaking to the young men and women of today’s Army and still bleeds “O.D. Green” for his 82nd Airborne.

    Whenever the world makes you cynical, whenever you doubt that courage and goodness is possible -- stop and think of these men.

    (snip)

    We are on this Earth for only a moment in time.  And fewer of us have parents and grandparents to tell us about what the veterans of D-Day did here 70 years ago.  As I was landing on Marine One, I told my staff, I don’t think there’s a time where I miss my grandfather more, where I’d be more happy to have him here, than this day.  So we have to tell their stories for them.  We have to do our best to uphold in our own lives the values that they were prepared to die for.  We have to honor those who carry forward that legacy, recognizing that people cannot live in freedom unless free people are prepared to die for it.

    And as today’s wars come to an end, this generation of servicemen and women will step out of uniform, and they, too, will build families and lives of their own.  They, too, will become leaders in their communities, in commerce, in industry, and perhaps politics -- the leaders we need for the beachheads of our time.  And, God willing, they, too, will grow old in the land they helped to keep free.  And someday, future generations, whether 70 or 700 years hence, will gather at places like this to honor them and to say that these were generations of men and women who proved once again that the United States of America is and will remain the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known.  

    May God bless our veterans and all who served with them, including those who rest here in eternal peace.  And may God bless all who serve today for the peace and security of the world.  May God bless the people of France.  And may God bless our United States of America.

    And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

    by noweasels on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:04:27 PM PDT

    •  Thank you noweasels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noweasels

      Like it or not a lot of what the president does is spew out a bunch of pretty words and I am really glad that he is the man spewing them at this point in time.

      His reception defies the media narrative and as time goes by I think that people will look back and wonder how they missed this great speech and that great blank and so on.

      This is my opinion, I think we're now we're entitled to having that here.

  •  This Hungarian musician (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, Eric Nelson

    seems to be channeling Stockhausen on the cymbalom:

    Of course you can make your own interpretation by channeling Stockhausen yourself.....

  •  Was so struck by the four veterans of D-Day (5+ / 0-)

    featured by NBC today, especially the one who brought his sons and grandsons to Normandy to show them what he went through. He also said that after taking life in the war he wanted to become a doctor to "save lives." He later delivered 4,000 babies.

    I'm so impressed now by these men that they bring tears to this "old geezer" and veteran's eyes. And permit me to wax philosophical: When you read Don Quixote when you're young, it means one thing; when you read the novel in middle-age it means something else; and when you read it in old age it means something else altogether. (Someone famously said this many years ago.) I feel the same way about these veterans: they mean so much more to me now than when I was younger. My appreciation for them has deepened in a way that I couldn't have imagined when I was 20, or 30, or 40, or 50, or at any other age before now.

    Maybe I can count that as a plus to get older after all.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:37:03 PM PDT

  •  You all make good points... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rithmck, blue in NC

    ...and bring good suggestions.  But you are just way too logical, scientific, reasonable, and humanely good citizens.

    In the minds of the rulers this is about one thing and one thing only: US Empire Uber Alles!

    The current next step is to supplant Russia in supplying natural gas to Europe and Ukraine.  This is the main strategic point in the Ukrainian conflict.  The US wants to take the European gas revenues away from Russia and make the US the major supplier of gas to Europe.

    This is what the major push for fracking in the US is all about.  Only through fracking and other extreme extraction methods, can we hope to have sufficient gas to meet Europe's needs and supplant Russia.  We don't care about methane emissions, carbon, or climate change.  Not right now anyway.  What is important right now is that we gain another stronghold against Russia and, ergo, China and the BRICS.  

    Unfortunately for humanity, some leaders see the need to dominate the world as the primary importance, and don't confuse me with the scientific facts, GDI & TYVM!

    "... this is a severe existential threat to the Russian state itself, and has been designed as such." Daniel Patrick Welch

    by dharmasyd on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:03:50 PM PDT

  •  Not with people like in Kansas doing good work.. (5+ / 0-)

    ..like these people have been doing for awhile now: Kansas Legislators Continue to Stand Up for the Renewable Portfolio Standard - March 20, 2013
    Fighting off the Koch's efforts to repeal Kansas' NRDC - Renewable Portfolio Standard (pdf)

    Yesterday was another good day for Kansas and the Renewable Portfolio Standard.  The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) ensures that Kansans receive a certain percentage of renewable energy like wind and solar in their electricity mix, culminating in 20 percent renewable energy by 2020.
    And forcing petrochemical polluters to pay for their clean-up is more than just a deterrent:
    BP is planning to sell 16 US wind farms and a portfolio of several other existing projects in the country in a bid to re-focus on oil and gas operations.

    The move follows a series of asset sales worth about $38bn, to help finance the compensation costs related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
    [...]
    So far, CEO Bob Dudley has sold $38bn in oil fields, pipelines and refineries to concentrate BP on its most profitable assets.

    ..On the surface this sounds bad. BP is going to focus on OIL. But they are being squeezed out of areas. It leaves land that won't be polluted by oil and fracking, and can be used for clean purposes, even clean wind energy - imo - no longer oil fields!

    Chris Hayes just did a report on a small Kansas town called Greenburg, which was 98% wiped out by tornados, but rebuilt using wind and solar technology and is now 100% renewable energy LEED certified - success! - and one of the reasons the Koch corpos have been unable to outlaw renewable standards.

    And this is a site showing Minnesota electrical planning. It's got cool easy to understand graphics on modern systems: How the electric transmission system works

    Flat Ridge 2 Wind Farm, Kansas, United States of America

    The electricity generated by the Flat Ridge 2 is enough to power around 140,000 homes in the US, on average. More than 500 workers were employed during the construction and 30 permanent workers were employed for monitoring and maintaining the wind farm.

    Thx MB

    wOOt: I can see and use the image library :)

    •  So what was the problem with... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, LakeSuperior

      ...accessing the image library?

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:19:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I had the wrong version of IE11 for windows 7.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LakeSuperior, JeffW

        ..and that caused the wrong kind of browseradd-ons to be used.

        That and I used to have wireless before cable and the wireless and cable were at odds with each other. One being that the wireless switched to public vs private access..

        As it turns out Daily Kos won't launch video to a page (mine) that isn't private. Something like that.

        The last Microsoft technician was in India Yesterday it was the Phillipines and this guyreally  knew his stuff.

        It's actually kind of amazing; sitting at your own computer watching your own mouse zip around the screen. But also watching someone who knows how to manipulate the computer with short cuts only using  the keyboard for programming too.

        This guy could use a computer without a mouse at all, darn near.  I caught as much as I could but being an amateur watching a pro, I missed a lot. Impressive.

        Everything is faster too.

  •  The CIA Official Twitter account (0+ / 0-)

    had me somewhat befuddled at their levity but if they are to have an official account at all then why not them be humanistic on their introduction?

    Social Media and CIA is a hard thing for me to mesh together in a serious sense.

  •  Wind needs natural gas because we can't store (3+ / 0-)

    electricity.
    They just built a 1000 kwh iron-chromium flow battery
    to smooth out renewable solar in CA.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/...

    A 42 gallon barrel of oil is the equivalent of 1600kwh of energy.
    I wish they could make a lot more progress on battery
    technology but there has not much improvement since 1859.

    We are going to have to work with natural gas or ccs
    to slow Global Warning.

  •  We Need to Quit Burning Everything Yesterday. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, JeffW

    Solar and wind energy generate no greenhouse gases in producing energy.

    We had a wonderful opportunity/wake up call to switch to solar and wind power and electric cars in 1973 when the OPEC oil embargo took place, but Big Oil wouldn't allow it.

    (Batteries aren't the only way to store energy.  Flywheels, capacitors, etc. can be used too.)

  •  New Post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LakeSuperior, jan4insight

    "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    by Lefty Coaster on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:27:50 PM PDT

  •  Production water (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue in NC, JeffW

    Politicians can be bought. Rules can remain unwritten, repealed or unenforced. But the physical requirements of non-conventional hydrocarbon will still be there. Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, with the result that we sometimes overlook the incredible water intensity of the activity. Usually we think of humans as messing up the air, the seas and the soil. Now we are messing up our subterranean legacy, collapsing sediment, causing minor earthquakes and subsidence, and bringing up ancient seawater that had been isolated 700m from the surface, allowing us to have clean drinking water from wells.

    The popular case is Starrh v. Aera Oil. What is interesting here is that Starrh wouldn't usually be seen as the good guy. It's just that the frackers, who ultimate had to pay $8.5 million in damages, were so much worse.

    It is not easy to see what you are not looking for, or to know what it is you do not know.

    by kosta on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:07:37 AM PDT

  •  Energy Costs Have Doubled, Will Double Again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, joe from Lowell

    It was only 15 years ago gas was about a dollar a gallon.  Likewise coal has tripled in price, and by 2030 it will likely double or triple again.

    The EPA rules are a nice way of steering us away from coal without being Chicken Little.  

    Strangely, even people here seem sold on the idea that the price of coal will mysteriously stabilize for the next 15 years.  Apparently there is a whole other range of Appalachian mountains made of coal that I have not been told about.  

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:10:27 AM PDT

  •  just noticed today as I was driving my bike (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    past the local Jiffy Lube that they were proudly advertising motor oil made from natural gas.
    Oy!

  •  Natural Gas won't be an issue... (0+ / 0-)

    ...Because the regulation is unlikely to survive a court chalenge. The EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate existing fixed point emissions that they already have programs in place to regulate. We all know that SCOTUS declared that CO2 is a pollutant and thus it is fair game for regulation, but the actual provisions of the act that the EPA is relying on specifically prohibits this specific type of regulation.

    Unfortunately, this push by Obama doesn't have a very good chance of a being successful.

    This is the argument, and it is pretty solid. There is some statute interpretation legalese that might be confusing for non-lawyers, but it's otherwise fairly straightforward for laymen.
    http://www.fed-soc.org/...

  •  Sorry guys& gals, this is Empire uber alles... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and has little if anything with protecting the environment, as I said above Empire, not Climate

    Don't believe me, read this...Obama’s Climate Plan is Leaking Methane

    And... gaining the natural gas market in Europe over Russia is central to the program for empire, the suppression of Russia, and our current adventure in Ukraine.

    "... this is a severe existential threat to the Russian state itself, and has been designed as such." Daniel Patrick Welch

    by dharmasyd on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:14:47 AM PDT

  •  The EPA's fracking-emissions rule... (0+ / 0-)

    requiring "green completion" technology to capture 95% of methane emissions from fracking goes into effect this year.

    Green Completion

    Fugitive methane emissions need to be captured, and that requires a strong regulatory state looking over the shoulders of the drilling companies. I wish there was more - or, you know, some - attention being given to the fracking rule.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:25:08 AM PDT

  •  Fracking (0+ / 0-)

    The fracking will just accelerate the end of the natural gas supply. In the short term, due to leakage, it will increase global warming (methane is a green house gas).

    Until individuals, on a mass scale, start installing solar collectors on their homes and businesses we will be dependent on the fossil fuel industry and they are not going to go quietly. They will fight green energy to the end.

    The fossil free future isn't too hard to predict. It will be an electrical/hydrogen future. That will require major infrastructure improvements in the electrical grid and an entirely new hydrogen production anddistribution system. It will also require major building code changes and requirements.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site