Sunday, July 1, 2012
Natural gas, touted for its environmental, economic, and national security benefits, is often thought of as the fuel that will “bridge” our transition from oil and coal to renewables. The ability to extract natural gas from shale formations through a method called hydraulic fracturing has unleashed vast, untapped sources—by some estimates, the U.S. now sits on a 100-year supply. But contamination from toxic chemicals used in the fracking process has been the source of increasing health and environmental concerns. Can natural gas be part of a clean energy solution, or is it a dangerous roadblock to a fossil-free future?
For
Deborah Goldberg
Managing Attorney at Earthjustice
For
Katherine Hudson
Watershed Program Director at Riverkeeper
Against
Joe Nocera
Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times
Against
Sue Tierney
Managing Principal at Analysis Group
Listen to the edited radio broadcast
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Listen to the unedited radio broadcast
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to the PodcastFor The Motion
Deborah Goldberg
Managing Attorney at Earthjustice
Deborah Goldberg is a Managing Attorney at Earthjustice, the world’s first and largest nonprofit environmental law firm, where she focuses on legal advocacy and litigation related to global warming and environmental health. Originally established as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Earthjustice provides legal representation—at no cost—to more than 1,000 clients, ranging from large national groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Audubon Society, to smaller community coalitions, such as Friends of the Everglades. Before joining Earthjustice, Goldberg was the Democracy Program Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Learn moreFor The Motion
Katherine Hudson
Watershed Program Director at Riverkeeper
Katherine Hudson is the Watershed Program Director at Riverkeeper, a member-supported watchdog organization dedicated to defending the Hudson River and protecting the drinking water supply of nine million New York City and Hudson Valley residents. It is led by President Paul Gallay and its Chief Prosecuting Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Hudson joined Riverkeeper after nearly 25 years spent in government protecting the environment of New York State. Hudson has been Assistant Attorney General in the office’s Environmental Protection Bureau, and has served in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, working in all program areas, including air quality, water quality, solid and hazardous waste and mining.
Learn moreAgainst The Motion
Joe Nocera
Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times
Joe Nocera is an op-ed columnist. Before joining The Opinion Pages, he wrote the Talking Business column for The New York Times and was a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. He also serves as a regular business commentator for NPR's Weekend Edition with Scott Simon. Before joining The Times, Nocera spent 10 years at Fortune Magazine, where he held a variety of positions, including contributing writer, editor-at-large, executive editor and editorial director. His most recent book, co-written with Bethany McLean, is All The Devils: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis, their bestselling account of the financial crisis.
Learn moreAgainst The Motion
Sue Tierney
Managing Principal at Analysis Group; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. Dept. of Energy
Susan Tierney is a Managing Principal at Analysis Group, where she specializes in the electric and gas industries. She has consulted to companies, governments, non-profits, and other organizations on energy markets, economic and environmental regulation and strategy, and energy facility projects. A former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy and state public utility commissioner, she is a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s energy project and the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board. She was appointed to the National Petroleum Council and serves as an ambassador for the U.S. Clean Energy Education & Empowerment program, an initiative of the Department of Energy and MIT.
Learn moreDeclared Winner: For The Motion
Online Voting
Research
Research For The Motion:
Research Against The Motion:
About This Event
45 comments
- Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 22:11 posted by Tomek Falkowski Ms. Tierney wants us to think that there are governmental regulations in place to help support the development of renewables, but does she believe that the fact that current government subsidies favor nonrenewables will change with the further development of natural gas?
- Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 22:05 posted by John Campbell We need to continue the development and control the risks.
- Comment Link Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:57 posted by Tomek Falkowski
There are a couple of points I want to make:
The issue at hand is whether the natural gas boom IS doing more harm than good; not that it will do more good if more regulations are put into place.
Climate change is happening. Even with using natural gas, climate change will continue unabated. As the anti-fracking panel pointed out methane leakage negates the potential decrease in greenhouse gas emissions relative to coal. And, with the potential increased drilling for natural gas, investment in truly renewable energy sources, which would actually curtail greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, will decrease dramatically. How would we prevent that?
If this is a boom economy, how do communities who allow fracking deal with the regularly observed economic bust cycle?
As to the efficiency of natural gas: Jevons paradox dictates that increased efficiency tends to result in increased consumption of that resource. With this in mind, will it last 100 years? Won't that result in more, short term methane leakage and greenhouse gas emissions augment global climate change? - Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:57 posted by Russ Cembrinski Questions for the panel against the motion:
Would you be willing to serve yourself and your family, at every dinner henceforth, a nice tall glass of the solution introduced into the wells and used to effect the nat-gas yield? If not, why not?
There is a "haz-matt-like" business booming around the handling of the solutions being introduced and extracted from the "fracking" wells. With all that we know and don't know about contamination of the aquifer, how do can you scientifically ensure this process will be completely safe?
Rhetorcially - Are we knowingly laying the ground work for the sequel to Erin Brockovich vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company?
I look forward to listening to the debate.
Best,
Russ C - Comment Link Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:56 posted by Tomek Falkowski
There are a couple of points I want to make:
The issue at hand is whether the natural gas boom IS doing more harm than good; not that it will do more good if more regulations are put into place.
Climate change is happening. Even with using natural gas, climate change will continue unabated. As the anti-fracking panel pointed out methane leakage negates the potential decrease in greenhouse gas emissions relative to coal. And, with the potential increased drilling for natural gas, investment in truly renewable energy sources, which would actually curtail greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, will decrease dramatically. How would we prevent that?
If this is a boom economy, how do communities who allow fracking deal with the regularly observed economic bust cycle?
As to the efficiency of natural gas: Jevons paradox dictates that increased efficiency tends to result in increased consumption of that resource. With this in mind, will it last 100 years? Won't that result in more, short term methane leakage and greenhouse gas emissions augment global climate change? - Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:56 posted by Rick Maltese The cast your vote page have the wrong paragraphs
The paragraph under the blue is for fracking
The paragraph under the red is against fracking
but commentator says if you are for the motion you are against fracking - Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:44 posted by Rick Maltese You actually don't state the motion to make it clear what "for" or a "against" is responding to so that the voting is useless because half the people won't understand.
- Comment Link Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:40 posted by Rick Maltese
You actually don't state the motion to make it clear what "for" or a "against" is responding to so that the voting is useless because half the people won't understand.
- Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:18 posted by Sharon The "For" and "Against" descriptions are backwards in the online voting section.
- Comment Link
Sunday, 01 July 2012 21:09 posted by Mark Duffett The words under 'For The Motion' and 'Against The Motion' appear diametrically opposite to the motion as framed in the title 'No Fracking Way: The Natural Gas Boom Is Doing More Harm Than Good'! In other words, if you are For the motion, that means you agree with the proposition in the title - but that would also mean you DISagree with the points listed above under 'For The Motion', and vice-versa!
Accordingly, I don't know what my vote would be taken to mean, and the poll results are meaningless.
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.
