Prof. Katharine Hayhoe brings some hope for the planet

Interview of Katharine Hayhoe – NPR Program ON BEING, October 21, 2021

Katharine Hayhoe is one of the most esteemed atmospheric scientists in the world. She’s made her mark by connecting dots between climate systems and weather patterns and the lived experience of human beings in their neighborhoods and communities.

She’s also an ambassador, if you will, between the science of climate change and the world of evangelical Christian faith and practice, which she also inhabits. To delve into that with her is to learn a great deal that refreshingly complicates the picture of what is possible and what is already happening, even across what feel like cultural fault lines. If you want to speak and walk differently on this frontier, this is a conversation for you.

Katharine Hayhoe is a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, and now Chief Scientist of the Nature Conservancy. She founded the Atmospheric Research and Consulting Firm, has been named one of Time ‘s 100 Most Influential People (2014), and serves as the climate ambassador for the World Evangelical Alliance. She is an outstanding public speaker in great demand.

Her new book is ‘Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World.’

Find the transcript for this show at onbeing.org — Katharine Hayhoe – “Our future is still in our hands” ~ Listen (50:58 minutes) and Read the Transcript.

#######…………………#######…………………#######

NOTE ~ Consumers of information from National Public Radio contend that NPR does its job well. A study conducted by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (University of Maryland at College Park) showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS – Public Broadcasting Service) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets. In one study, NPR and PBS audiences had a more accurate understanding of the events in Iraq versus all audiences for cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media.

WV, PA, OH, shale fracking states

Opinion – Editorial by S. Thomas Bond, Charleston Gazette, June 1, 2018

Fracking, the most recent method of extracting gas and oil, is the delight of some and the dread of an increasing part of the population. The arguments for it are exactly two in number: first, civilization is based on energy, and burning fuels is the way to energy; second energy provides lots of jobs, the arguments against fracking are many, keen, and the list is growing.

Unfortunately, many tend to view fossil fuels as the only feasible source of energy. This inability to distinguish between the conventional way of getting energy and energy itself is the product of science illiteracy and not-so-subtle cultivation of the idea by our present day energy industry.

The most pressing argument for ending use of fossil fuels is the accumulation of the colorless, odorless, chemical byproduct of burning, carbon dioxide. It is capable of converting a certain range of the sun’s wavelengths into heat we can feel. This is causing measurable warming worldwide, a widely studied phenomenon with seriously deleterious effects. If you “don’t believe in global warming,” you are like people who don’t believe in evolution or those who think the world is flat, not a sphere. You are beyond evidence and reason, or too lazy to pursue the subject.

Why fracking? Our national reserves of conventional gas and oil are approaching exhaustion, due to profligate use and export for decades. It lays in porous rock, and all that was necessary was to drill down to the reservoir rock and pump from the well. The petroleum would make its way to the well through the pores in the rock, and wells would supply product for decades before becoming uneconomic.

Our use was profligate, and we exported, so conventional began to run out, and we have been importing more and more in recent decades. The Eastern Gas Shales Project ran from 1976 to 1992 at the Morgantown Energy Research Center produced a way to actually break rock in shale reservoirs, which are not naturally permeable. George P. Mitchel worked with government financing to combine this new high hydraulic pressure with bending the drill stem to horizontal, special targeting control to keep the drill in the preferred strata, and a zoo of synthetic chemicals to produce the method that is now called “fracking.”

In the hinterland where fracking is done, fear runs rampant. Experience shows the new method, in practice for only a decade or so, causes a variety of harms, which drillers are unwilling to recognize or pay for. Large acreages are required for drilling, pipelines and pump stations. They cannot be returned to their original use in the foreseeable future. Environmental problems result, such as sediment in streams and destruction of wildlife and domestic animals from the drillng and leaks of synthetic chemicals.

Devaluation of property results. Who wants to live or farm near the noise, light and smells of this industry? Roads are broken by a thousand or more trips to each well site and removal of waste. The tax money pays for this cost.

Sickness is well documented by over 1,700 medical research articles, illness such as asthma and other respiratory problems, abortion and light birth weights, heart problems, and endocrine gland disruption.

There are serious problems with fracking compared to alternate energy industry. It is high capital and low labor, compared to alternate forms of energy. A lot of jobs at the construction phase, but these last only a few weeks, followed by few workers to operate the equipment. The jobs are specialized, so little is open to local men (very few women want this kind or work) except truck driving and many cases are known where drivers are kept on the job 24 or more hours straight.

Fracked wells commonly have an economic life of 6 to 8 years, and the recovery is seldom more than 8 percent of the oil or gas in place. No chance of recovery of the rest is insight. Increase in production per well is due to longer laterals (horizontal drilling segments of the well), not any real efficiency.

According to a report in a December Wall Street Journal titled “Wall Street Tells Frackers to Stop Counting Barrels, Start Making Profits,” the fracking industry has lost an amazing $280 billion since it began.

So what is the power of fracking? Politics! The accumulated law and practice that allows the industry to rip off land and mineral owners, make its neighbors sick and gets the public to pay for roads and emergencies. Cozy relations with glad handing legislators and officials is a big factor. And not to be forgotten is inertia due to lack of scientific awareness, and general reluctance to change the way things are done.

Fracking is power over people and property, over a livable world, and over alternatives the world must have.

>>> S. Thomas Bond, of Jane Lew, is a retired chemistry teacher.