Cleveland Classifieds

GasBuddy News Article

votes

Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped Rea

Time -- Mainstream environmental groups have struggled to find the right line on shale natural gas and the hydraulic fracturing or fracking process. Gas has a much smaller carbon footprint than coal—according to most scientists—and produces far fewer air pollutants. That was enough for many major green groups to give support to gas as a “bridge fuel” to a cleaner energy future—the next best domestic alternative to coal as an electricity source while alternatives like wind and solar scaled up. But for grassroots members of those groups—especially in parts of the country where fracking was already underway—the risk of local pollution wasn’t worth the national and global climate benefits of greater gas consumption...

Read the Full Article

Submitted Feb 03, 2012 By: NGC4565

Back To News

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics	Add to favorite topics

Author	Topic: Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped Rea	Post a Reply Back to Topics

REPLIES (newest first)

GasFreeLeaf All-Star Author Orange County Posts:943 Points:350,705 Joined:Oct 2010	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2012 2:02:51 PM Ignore GasFreeLeaf Report Abuse Money does have the loudest voice and can distort reason. It takes time for reason regain a little space at the table.
johnnyg1200 Champion Author St. Louis Posts:1,496 Points:303,510 Joined:May 2011	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:30:26 PM Ignore johnnyg1200 Report Abuse All of this depends on the myth of manmade global warming. I don’t buy into the scam.
BurtB Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:2,284 Points:1,098,475 Joined:Jun 2006	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 1:10:58 PM Ignore BurtB Report Abuse Martinman, You so desperately want to believe that Greenhouse gasses are produced by humans in significant quantities to effect the world temperature, that you ignore the continuing drip of data to suggest that government funding has perverted "climate science" to the point that records are being falsified, and models are proving false.
BurntOrange Champion Author Austin Posts:6,683 Points:1,228,730 Joined:Nov 2007	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 9:24:30 AM Ignore BurntOrange Report Abuse Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Follow the money and the sudden shared interest becomes clear. Not unlike Mr Buffet's rail investments getting a big bump from delays in Keystone XL pipeline.
NukeAtComEd Veteran Author Milwaukee Posts:428 Points:238,190 Joined:Jan 2011	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 9:04:21 AM Ignore NukeAtComEd Report Abuse GO NUCLEAR!
Martinman Champion Author Mississippi Posts:12,512 Points:1,739,070 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 8:53:32 AM Ignore Martinman Report Abuse doespayersr from illinois posted... "Interesting. However, CO2 is not a pollutant" . While most dictionary definitions use the term "waste" or contaminants" to define "pollutant", the used the following: "In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria...." Much like what many perceive as the definition of "toxin", virtually any substance or compound can become toxic when the concentration is changed significantly, compared to what is the normal. Pure oxygen, water, even the vitamins that are essential to the human body, all become toxic when the concentration exceeds some threshold.
dgerst Champion Author South Carolina Posts:1,031 Points:223,315 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 8:31:20 AM Ignore dgerst Report Abuse Natural gas has to be considered as a bridge to clean energy as it costs less and creates less emissions than coal.
TomT2Lee Champion Author Cincinnati Posts:4,217 Points:1,265,845 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:58:41 AM Ignore TomT2Lee Report Abuse The American professional politicians give off tremendous amounts of gas. Pretty sure it isn't natural, but it sure burns when it comes in contact with the population.
doeslayersr Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,821 Points:511,175 Joined:Dec 2010	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:52:57 AM Ignore doeslayersr Report Abuse Interesting. However, CO2 is not a pollutant
FPLREP Champion Author Virginia Posts:6,368 Points:2,089,570 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:50:18 AM Ignore FPLREP Report Abuse Whatever.
NGC4565 Champion Author Reading Posts:1,934 Points:388,165 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:38:56 AM Ignore NGC4565 Report Abuse I had always wondered why environmentalists thought that the CO2 from natural gas was preferable to the CO2 from coal. This article certainly helps to explain it.
Rockyguitar All-Star Author Tampa Posts:846 Points:873,470 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:34:39 AM Ignore Rockyguitar Report Abuse Can you say, "NUCLEAR" power generation!? Cleanest/safest/most cost efficient(if they get rid of the useless red tape).
bullet226 Champion Author Toronto Posts:2,685 Points:528,965 Joined:Nov 2010	Message Posted: Feb 3, 2012 7:34:15 AM Ignore bullet226 Report Abuse Conspiracy?