Look Who is Opposed to Fracking

So you oppose fracking (hydraulic fracturing) to produce natural gas. Would it surprise you to know that you agree with Vladimir Putin? Just follow the money:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. . .
. . .
The foundation [funded by the Bermuda company] passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.,
. . .
The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general.

Russia's interests are served by higher energy prices worldwide, so opposition to U.S. fracking by them is understandable.  All those years of using the KGB to foment propaganda against the West are still being put to use.

Getting beyond ad-hominem attack, I have always believed that environmentalists reflexive opposition to the new technology is based on a hatred of industrialization not a love for the environment. This is clearly the case with fracking and the increased production of natural gas.  Environmentalists should be ecstatic about the use of natural gas, instead we see the Sierra Club launching a campaign against it.  Last year, greenhouse gas emissions from the United States fell to their lowest levels since 1995.  It is well understood that increased use of natural gas to displace coal, has been a key factor in this reduction.   From the MIT Technology Review:

. . . the trend is largely the result of a rapid drop in coal-fired electricity, and a corresponding rise in electricity generated by cleaner fuels, especially natural gas.

You would think this would be cause for cheer amongst green groups. But then, you have to expect it will actual consistency from the environmentalists.

American Heroes, Engaged in Fracking Operations

Photo: Courtesy of Joshua Doubek

We Had to Destroy the Fish in Order to Save Them

PG&E operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, located near San Luis Obispo is due for a permit to extend its life for another twenty years of delivering electricity to California. Recently, an undersea fault line was discovered in the oceans off San Luis Obispo. In order to get a permit, PG&E must conduct a seismic survey as required by state law.

PG&E has been directed to conduct the survey by the California Energy Commission (CEC) as required by Assembly Bill 1632, authored by Senator Sam Blakeslee. The legislation was enacted in 2006.

To comply with the state law PG&E must recover the costs of the survey from their rate payers, the public. However,

. . .an administrative judge with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) put PG&E on notice that it first must complete high-energy, three-dimensional offshore studies to determine the exact force and velocity of the new fault line discovered three years ago just a few hundred yards off the coast from the nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile, fishermen in the area are very concerned. Presumably, the seismic study is to ensure that the environment in the area is protected, including the fish in the bay, however, the seismic study is likely to kill many fish.

In the midst of many fishers voicing alarm over what they believe will be devastating impacts to fisheries from San Luis Bay to Cambria, the first official environmental impact report on PG&E's proposed deep-water seismic studies of faults that could affect the safety of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is tentatively being planned for release in draft form in January by the California State Lands Commission.
. . .
In its notice of preparation of the DEIR, the Commission noted that ever since 1987, there has been "mounting evidence of the potentially significant effects of 'high-energy' survey equipment . . . on marine fish (including eggs and larvae), mammals, and reptiles, both behaviorally and physiologically . . . "

Unconfirmed rumor is that fishermen are being offered serious coin to offset the loss of income if the tests are carried out.

Meanwhile environmentalists are attempting to stop a low carbon source of electricity, while AB32 is requiring new sources of low carbon electricity. I love the stupidity of this state. If we don't totally destroy our own economy, I will be shocked.

(H/T to Dawn Wildman of the SCRTC.)

Why Do Enviros Hate Personal Transportation?

Noel Spaid's editorial in today's Union-Tribune trots out the same misinformation and half-truths used by so called environmentalists to argue against any road building.

The sky over L. A. is yellow-gray many days and you can’t see the sun in sunny California. That’s the result of building too many freeways in L.A. Is this what we want for San Diego County – more cars, more gas, more dependence on oil and foreign governments that are our sworn enemies? Exactly what is good about this plan? We are going to spend $3.3 to $4.5 billion to do this to ourselves?

P.L.A.G.U.E. has spoken.

He argues that expanding an existing route, I-5, in North County, would damage the environment and cause us to be more dependent on foreign oil. But, compared to what? Doing nothing just increases the current gridlock, cars idling get very poor mileage and pollute the environment even more.

What are the alternatives to meeting the known demand for transportation? The rail efforts mentioned are years off. It has been widely reported that building freeway is the most cost effective way to increase transport capacity and rail is much less effective than highway building in reducing congestion. Further, additional lanes can be used to provide incentives for low emission solutions of carpools, hybrid vehicles and buses. Merely expanding a freeway does not lead to the outcomes the author suggests. Further, misleading statistics are used to bolster the argument, it is 34,000, not 47,000 annual deaths on our highways, 40% of which are estimated to be alcohol related.

I admit to being concerned over the need to remove homes along the route. In California, we don't have a good track record of adequately compensating under the takings clause.

Ultimately, I suspect that the real objection to more freeway is a hatred for the freedom that individual vehicles give us. Those vehicles are getting more and more fuel efficient and as gasoline prices have risen our behavior is resulting in less pollution and less fossil fuel consumption, I favor a carbon tax (with an offset against the income tax) to reduce pollution, but don't take away the freedom that comes from making our own choices.

More Hate From the Green Movement

The young man pictured at left is Bakouma Kpatekatola, from the West African nation of Togo. Tragically he has died of malaria since this picture was taken. Togo is one of the African nations that has succumbed to environmental fanaticism and banned indoor residual spraying of DDT, an effective method of killing malaria carrying mosquitos. Iowahawk has the whole story here.