Any time you wonder about whether Obama has been not the most romantic progressive boyfriend, please ponder how we’d be doing on climate issues with President Romney. This is a BFD:
WASHINGTON — In President Barack Obama’s latest move using executive authority to tackle climate change, administration officials are announcing plans this week to impose new regulations on the oil and gas industry’s emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
The administration’s goal is to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production by up to 45 percent by 2025 from the levels recorded in 2012, according to an official familiar with Obama’s plans.
Obama Administration to Unveil Plans to Cut Methane Emissions – Nation – The Boston Globe.
Natural gas does indeed burn cleaner than coal. It’s what happens when it doesn’t burn: Trapping 80x as much heat as CO2. (Methane decays; over a 100-year period it’s still 20x that of CO2. The 80x figure is relevant because we don’t have 100 years to wait.) So when it leaks — which it does — it loses much, if not all of its advantage.
So one wonders what Charlie Baker’s seemingly lackluster energy team is going to do about our admittedly high electricity and gas prices. Just build another pipeline? Does that make sense? Let’s try to follow this logic:
- If gas is cheap, we should expand capacity — cheap energy, everyone!
- If gas is expensive (as it is now) … we should expand capacity!
No. The problem is our dependency on a price-volatile commodity. How about this: continue to bolster efficiency measures and price-stabilizing renewables — a booming industry that happens to be native to Massachusetts. Why shouldn’t Massachusetts shouldn’t go big on renewables, like California?
For Big Oil, “we must expand infrastructure” is a solution perpetually in search of a problem.
The problem is the infrastructure necessary to move it around.
Kudos for the methane leaks initiative. I think there’s been some question (in the articles I’ve read today) of how much current regulations have enforced to date, but regardless it’s a good idea.
We need less cattle as well. That will help too.
In Argentina farmers are using “backpacks” which captures methane from the cows, they can then use the methane. Win, win, create your burger and cook it also.
Yeah, unfortunately I suspect that will prove to be one of the famous Consequences that Elections Have.
Mind you we might have gotten that particular shaft anyway, but the chances of winning any mitigating concessions (like energy-efficiency programs in Maine and New Hampshire, the lack of which is contributing to this whole thing) are probably slim and none.