EPA Methane Rules Would Only Slow Global Warming By 0.0047 Degrees

methane vid clipFracking and Methane: What You Need to Know (video)Proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations intended to lower methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to fight global warming would only lower the temperature by 0.0047 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, according to calculations performed Monday by the industry group Energy In Depth (EID).

The EPA’s proposed rules would have essentially no impact on global temperatures, only causing a temperature drop of 0.0047 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The rules would make it hard to produce natural gas, which would likely increase other greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming.

The EID calculations and research cited several scientific studies to support the idea that methane emissions from the entire natural gas system are very low and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. Oil and natural gas production of methane is not to blame for the global spike in emissions, according to a study published in the journal Science in March and American greenhouse gas emissions of all types are broadly declining, largely due to fracking.

Even the EPA has noted that rising natural gas use is reponsible for falling greenhouse gas emissions, saying in an April report “a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity has occurred due to…increased natural gas consumption and other generation sources.”

The EPA’s own data shows that methane emissions have declined as fracking increased natural gas production, but the environmental agency still wants to regulate methane to reduce global warming.

The EID and EPA’s conclusions directly contradict those of The Sierra Club and other environmental groups, which have long claimed that the environmental advantages of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are negated by increased methane emissions.

The biggest cause of declining carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is America’s fracking boom, not solar or wind power, according to a study published last November by the Manhattan Institute.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Would someone please do the math?… What does it then cost (assuming all the nonsense about man made CO2 causing warming to be true) to lower the temperature by one full degree?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    I don’t believe they even know that. It’s a guess. I also don’t think the calculations they use mean anything. The way the planet functions now, input pretty much equals output. Convection currents take care of it. As someone else recently pointed out, it’s cold 10,000 ft up – including CO2 and methane. Cold air sinks. Hot air rises. I don’t think anything is going to change that any time soon.
    I get a little hot under the collar when it comes to the so-called equations. If you can’t feel the increase, it doesn’t matter. And I have to keep pointing out that’s not a real temperature, but an average. Methane and CO2 can’t trap heat near as much as people think. Something drastic would have to happen for catastrophic climate change. Yellowstone volcano eruption – asteroid strike – something to throw the earth out of its present orbit. Right now all we have is yearly variability. Common sense has to take over at some point. I’m done arguing with people using equations or calculations. Scientists playing with numbers get too smart for their own britches. I don’t know what caused the ice ages, and I don’t know what caused the warming but the way I see it, we’re going to maintain pretty much an even keel for the future of even our grandchildren’s grandchildren. Anybody says differently, I have to consider a nut case. Especially the ones that think we have to “protect our winters” by lowering emissions, but find it necessary to go skiing high in the mountains, emitting to their heart’s content all the way. *SMH*
    The whole argument is beyond wearisome now. It’s time to put the EPA this global warming crap to bed. If we can handle wide seasonal variations in temps 4x/yr, we can handle pretty much any climate change that’s happening. 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Remember the goal of the EPA regulations has nothing to do with warming. Wind and solar power are by far the most expensive energy in use. They can only exist when supported by subsidies and mandates. Cheap natural gas makes this situation worse because the it increases the difference between wind and solar and fossil fuel use.

    The only objective of the EPA mandates is to increase the cost of methane.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]Remember the goal of the EPA regulations has nothing to do with warming. Wind and solar power are by far the most expensive energy in use. They can only exist when supported by subsidies and mandates. Cheap natural gas makes this situation worse because the it increases the difference between wind and solar and fossil fuel use.

    The only objective of the EPA mandates is to increase the cost of methane.[/quote]
    And to be just a bit more cynical, the only reason to increase the cost of methane is to put the world’s greatest free market economy on a par with low-achieving socialist models.

    The objective of socialism is never to [u]raise[/u] a tide that floats all boats; it’s to [u][b]pull down[/b][/u] achievers to a lowest common denominator.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.