U.S. Energy Choices and Global Climate Plans, Revkin, Andrew , Dot Earth | New York Times, (2010)



...the sometimes loosely governed rush to liberate this fuel from rock deposits through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has helped invigorate opponents of drilling. I agree with Christopher Helman over at Forbes, who wrote a couple of days ago that low gas prices mean there’s little to lose by holding up drilling in highly contested areas (the Marcellus Shale here in New York being the prime battle zone) while an Environmental Protection Agency scientific review is completed.

I was at the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday and officials there made a convincing case that the hydraulic fracturing study, due out in 2012, will clarify where real risks lie.

But campaigners who fight natural gas altogether, like anyone else immersed in the struggle over an energy policy that works for the long haul, had better come up with a real-world game plan for fostering human progress while limiting environmental risks.

Otherwise, they’ve moved from the Nimby camp to the world of the Banana (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).

See: Climate Co-benefits and Child Mortality Wedges

About Dot Earth


In Dot Earth, which recently moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits.