Fracking can cut carbon emissions

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Washington Post
  • Updated: February 16, 2013 - 7:21 AM
  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
armybratFeb. 15, 13 6:26 PM

Anything other than solar and wind is summarily dismissed and will not be considered regardless of the science. Liberals are anti-science. If they were serious about being energy independent with clean, safe fuel they would not reject nuclear.

margeanncullenFeb. 15, 1310:17 PM

Yes a lot of poison mixed in that fracking water to come back and get in your drinking water. I love science Armybrat and how do you figure nuclear waste is safe for ______ sake?

armybratFeb. 16, 13 6:59 AM

"how do you figure nuclear waste is safe for ______ sake?"

Show me a single death from nuclear waste if you think you can.

monkeyplanetFeb. 16, 13 7:37 AM

Why would the Strib print such an ignorant editorial? There is absolutely no mention of the environmental problems created by fracking, such as the pollution of drinking water with toxic chemicals. Fracking is far from problem-free. Maybe just a mention or two of that would be warranted, you think?

nessmessFeb. 16, 13 8:20 AM

Word is... California has an oil/gas shale several times bigger than N Dakota; the one in Colorado is 10 x bigger, while they have discovered another shale in Texas that's reported to dwarf the N dakota "bakken"... We have so much oil/gas locked up in shale's, it would take a millenium to use it all. Even Israel has a small shale that is reported to contain over 400 Billion bbl's of oil...

sarahanneFeb. 16, 13 8:23 AM

There are alternative sources of energy. They cost more but will be available through the market place. I have yet to hear about an alternative to water. We keep saying we cannot pass our debt to future generations but it seems that we are willing to pass contaminated water to future generations.

nessmessFeb. 16, 13 8:26 AM

P.S. if we were to use a thorium nuclear fuel cycle, we would have enough "clean & safe" nuclear fuel (in USA alone) to last over 1 million years (yes, 1 million years) and yes, there would have virtually no waste left over... But for environmental reasons (code word for anti-progress, anti-human life) the gov't spends no time on research (they would rather give their money to faux companies (corp. cronies) like A-123, etc...

nrabadFeb. 16, 13 9:27 AM

If we don't have clean water, we won't need oil or gas.

julio57Feb. 16, 13 9:48 AM

I am curious what the anti-fracking crowd would like us to do. I think we can all agree that oil is not a long term solution. It is dirty, expensive and it's availability and price stability is reliant on the stability of the most unstable nations in the world. We have an abundance of coal, but until it can be burned as cleanly and cheaply as Gas it is not a good fuel source. Wind is good, but the turbines are expensive and inefficient, and wind farms have to be located where the wind is, and that is NOT near large cities. Solar Panels work great in the Southwest, but in the rest of the country they are nothing more than a novelty because there simply is not the necessary sunlight (or open ground to locate countless acres of panels close enough to a city to make a difference) to make them a wide-spread solution for a urban areas. Putting a solar panel on the roof of your house might cut down your bill, but it will not help factories, office builidings, warehouses, farms, and other entities who require more energy than they could possibly produce with solar. My point is, while the long term solution is a combination of advanced solar technology for homes, next generation wind turbines where available, clean(er) coal, nuclear (assuming the govt. ever permits it) and NATURAL GAS everywhere else. We can't switch overnight, and we can't switch to a product that is not at least close to being cost-competitive. The environmentalists love to claim they are speaking on behalf of science, yet they have absolutely zero understanding of society, economics, and human behavior.

sundialFeb. 16, 1310:18 AM

All energy sources have their problems and limits. How about a full court press on conservation as we move to renewables?


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters