This Liberal Media Outlet Says Fracking To Blame For Green Civil War

protestThe environmental benefits of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are causing a split in the global green movement, according to an article published Wednesday in the progressive magazine Mother Jones.

Anti-fracking environmentalists, led by, Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, claim that natural gas is actually accelerating global warming more than coal due to methane emissions, even if it does cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. These activists heavily doubt the official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) figures on methane leaks, largely because of an article published by Bill McKibben, the leader of

Pro-fracking environmentalists, led by The Breakthrough Institute, point out that McKibben misrepresented the scientific research on methane emissions to attack fracking. These environmentalists point out that a study published in the journal Science in March blames agricultural practices, not oil and natural gas, for increasing methane emissions. The same study points out that the American greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming are declining largely due to fracking.

The split in the environmental movement has led to a green civil war over proposed EPA regulations intended to lower methane emissions from fracking. These regulations, however, would only lower the temperature by 0.0047 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA’s own data.

Since anti-fracking environmentalists believe EPA is underestimating methane emissions from fracking, the regulations would be far more effective than the EPA admits. Pro-fracking environmentalists believe that the regulations would make fracking less popular, causing CO2 emissions to increase — which would more than offset any decrease in methane emissions.

Fracking, not government green policies, has caused CO2 emissions to drop sharply in 47 states and Washington, D.C., according to both Scientific American and other studies by the EIA.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    Quote from the article, “McKibben misrepresented the scientific research on methane emissions to attack fracking.” Miss representation of the facts is soo typical of the anthropological climate change movement.

    A larger issue is the slit among the greens, and it will probably end up a three way split. Bernie Sanders appears to support nuclear power, but said if he did so opening he would split the green movement. Now there is the split on fracking.

    It is probably a simple matter of those who have been fooled by the climate change fraud and those who want to use it for hidden agendas, such as deindustrializing the United States. If the belief in climate change is the only motivation, then fracking makes a lot of sense. If hidden agendas such as deindustrialization are the motive, then fracking is terrible news. It helps lower CO2 emission while keeping our industry and society the way it is.

    Even including the high profile nuclear accidents, this form of energy has the best safety record. For someone who acknowledges this fact and does not have hidden agendas, nuclear power is a great way to lower emissions.

    The inconsistency in motivations will probably fragment the environmentalist movement.


Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.