API: Proposed EPA Emission Rules Will Reduce Shale Gas Drilling

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,793
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
API: Proposed EPA Emission Rules Will Reduce Shale Gas Drilling
Rig Zone ^ | March 15, 2012 | Karen Boman

RIGZONE - API: Proposed EPA Emission Rules Will Reduce Shale Gas Drilling
Proposed regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce air emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations would drastically reduce shale gas drilling by 31 percent to 52 percent, or 12,700 to 21,400 wells, over the 2012 to 2015 time period, according to a study by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The API study also found that:

5.8 to 7.0 quadrillion Btu (Quads) of otherwise economic unconventional natural gas would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 9 percent to 11 percent reduction 1.8 billion barrels of otherwise economic unconventional liquids would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 21 percent to 37 percent reduction federal royalties of $7 billion to $8.5 billion that would otherwise be collected would not be paid in the first four years after the requirements go into effect state revenues from severance taxes amounting to $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion would be delayed beyond the first four years after the requirements go into effect The study, conducted for API by Advanced Resources International, examined the potential impact of the requirements for use of reduced emissions completions (REC) equipment on hydraulically fractured wells, including potential revenue from methane, cost impact and delays in unconventional resource development.

Two scenarios were used to address the use-rate of REC equipment for the study – the first estimated it would take three to four years for REC equipment to become available to keep pace with unconventional drilling activity, while the second estimated it would take six to seven years equipment to become available to allow the pace and level of unconventional drilling that would otherwise occur.

Under both scenarios, a significant slowdown in unconventional resource development would occur. The analysis did not estimate lost jobs associated with reduced drilling, oil and gas supply services and indirect employment.

EPA in July 2011 proposed a number of regulatory requirements to reduce air emission from the oil and gas industry. These proposals include reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through the use of RECs, which simultaneously reduce VOC and methane emissions. When gas cannot be collected during well completion operations, emissions would be reduced through pit flaring, unless it is a safety hazard.

EPA's proposed rule, expected to take effect sometime next month, would impose REC requirements on most unconventional gas wells. The REC requirements would not apply to exploratory wells or delineation wells, which generally are not near a gas sales line. Equipment required to conduct RECs may include tankage, special gas-liquids and separate traps and gas dehydration.

A number of states now require the use of RECs, and a number of companies are already using this process, even where not required by states, according to ARI's report. EPA estimates that 3,000 to 4,000 of the 25,000 new and modified fractured gas wells completed each year currently employ RECs.

According to the ARI report, the cost assumptions used by the EPA are unrealistically low, and the impacts also are underestimated. API on Nov. 30 commented on the proposed rule, saying that equipment required to conduct REC would not be available in time to comply with the current final rule schedule.

"We believe it will take years to manufacture sufficient specialized equipment and adequately train operators how to safely conduct these operations." API also noted that the equipment is fairly specialized, the number of shops licensed to make the equipment is limited, and some components have long lead time.

Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs with API, told reporters in a conference call on Thursday that the organization was seeking to work with EPA to develop standards to reduce air emissions that would be beneficial for both the environment and U.S. consumers.

"We're cautious of what the EPA is doing because we believe it runs counter to the adminstration's commitment to produce gas," said Feldman. "We hope that they will make modifications to the final rule that will allow all of us to produce gas efficiently and safely without affecting the marketplace."

The issue of methane emissions from shale gas wells has been the subject of discussion and studies in the past year by the EPA, Cornell University and America's Natural Gas Alliance, an energy industry association.

IHS-CERA: EPA Methodology for Methane Emissions Overstated

EPA's current methodology for estimating gas field methane emissions is not based on methane emitted during well completions, but instead on a data sample of methane capture during well completions, according to a 2011 IHS CERA report.

The assumptions underlying EPA's methodology do not reflect current industry practices.

"As a result, its estimates of methane emissions are dramatically overstate and it would be unwise to use them as a basis for policymaking," IHS CERA noted in the report, adding that the Cornell study conducted on methane emissions in 2011 also makes similar errors.

If methane emissions were as high as EPA and the Cornell study assume, extremely hazardous conditions would be created at the well site. "Such conditions would not be permitted by industry or regulators," IHS CERA noted.

The regulations proposed by EPA are already standard industry practice and are unlikely to significantly reduce upstream greenhouse gas emissions.

"However, measured emissions could be significantly lower than EPA-inflated estimates," IHS CERA noted, adding that the greatest benefit of the proposed regulations is likely to be better document of actual greenhouse gas emissions from upstream gas development.
 
Hooray! The administration quickly moves to stifle economic growth and energy security in this nation for non existent threat required to subsidize eco-fascism.
 
Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. oil and gas industry invested more than $71 billion in GHG mitigation technology. This far eclipses the federal government's $43 billion invested, and is nearly as much as the $74 billion invested by the rest of private industry combined.
 
Obama stated for the record in Jan 2008 he wanted to bankrupt coal plants, he wanted to raise the price of electrical generation to a level only the rich could afford and force the price of gas to be so high only the rich could afford it.

Why would this new policy surprise anyone?
 
Why doesn't the EPA go after agriculture with such voracity?

An average of 10 times as much soil erodes from American agricultural fields as is replaced by natural soil formation processes.

Surface runoff carries manure, fertilizers, and pesticides into streams, lakes, and reservoirs, in some cases causing unacceptable levels of bacteria, nutrients, or synthetic organic compounds. Similarly, water percolating downward through farm fields carries with it dissolved chemicals, which can include nitrate fertilizers and soluble pesticides. In sufficient quantities these can contaminate groundwater supplies.

Leaching of nitrate from agricultural fields can elevate concentrations in underlying groundwater to levels unacceptable for drinking water quality.

...pesticides generally kill not only the pest of concern, but also a wide range of other organisms, including beneficial insects and other pest predators.

PSEP :: Fact sheets :: Modern Agriculture: Its Effects on the Environment
 
Why is it that republicans think pollution is a good thing? Its as if Republicans think that having mercury in our water and air creates jobs.
 
Why is it that republicans think pollution is a good thing? Its as if Republicans think that having mercury in our water and air creates jobs.
We don't. Since we're asking stupid questions; Why are libs all retarded?

Is mercury in our lightbulbs better than our thermometers and vaccines?

Can you show a cost/effectiveness study showing the benefit with REAL data, not imagined or 'modeled' that equates to a significant improvement to life with these changes?

Can we have a little intellectual consistency and honesty?

Guess not.
 
-----Why is it that republicans think pollution is a good thing? Its as if Republicans think that having mercury in our water and air creates jobs.-------
We don't. Since we're asking stupid questions;
You dont? Then how come every time the EPA issues a new regulation that reduces those things do you all cry about the costs?
In the current situation you are all crying about rules reducing pollutants.
-
Is mercury in our lightbulbs better than our thermometers and vaccines?
Yes mercury in lgihtbubls is better then in drinking water/ air. Have any more stupid questions?
And to further note the lightbulb energy efficiency regulation doesn't mandate that CFC lightbulbs be used it mandates that efficient lightbubls must be used of which lightbulbs without mercury in them have already been developed that are legal under the new regulations

-
Can you show a cost/effectiveness study showing the benefit with REAL data, not imagined or 'modeled' that equates to a significant improvement to life with these changes?
I wonder can you show cost/effectiveness study showing the benefit with REAL data, not imagined or 'modeled (IE studies from oil companies)' that equates to a significant loss from these regulations?
Because I can.
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/EnvAccount_MMN_AER0811.pdf
here's another one
Natural gas from shale worse for global warming than coal, Cornell study says | PennLive.com


-
Can we have a little intellectual consistency and honesty?

Guess not.
Is it consistent to claim that a study done by oil companies is accurate on the effects of oil pollution and oil regulations and then to claim that a study done by the EPA on he effects of pollution is some how not "real data"?
 
Then how come every time the EPA issues a new regulation that reduces those things do you all cry about the costs?
In the current situation you are all crying about rules reducing pollutants.

Show proof the tightening of the regulations improves life and health for one, and two is worth the loss of jobs and increased costs of living that make everyone's life more difficult and slow the economy.

THAT is the basis for any environmental improvement. The cost/benefit. There are already regulations being met. This is a tightening of the regs without proof of improvement.

Yes mercury in lgihtbubls is better then in drinking water/ air. Have any more stupid questions?

Oh I see... there's "Good Mercury" and bad mercury and it's status depends completely on how politically correct it is for ecofascists. If I went to the capital and broke a case of these deliberately in the rotunda, would I be guilty of terrorism by a chemical attack with all the mercury vapor I let loose in there? Is that REALLY safe in your home? You do realizes MILLIONS of people will be just throwing them into landfills because we don't give a shit about paying extra for disposal? You've no clue how much convenience and cost matters over safety or the environment.

And to further note the lightbulb energy efficiency regulation doesn't mandate that CFC lightbulbs be used it mandates that efficient lightbubls must be used of which lightbulbs without mercury in them have already been developed that are legal under the new regulations

Right. It's about taking away choices from the public for political control over a pair of crisis that doesn't exist (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Peak Oil) and the public won't willingly do because it's prohibitively expensive and foolish to 'fix' something that ain't broke.


From the paper.

The present study develops an accounting framework and presents empirical
estimates of the external costs of air pollution in the framework of the national economic accounts.

Ain't facts, just WAGS (Wild As Guesses) and assumption of improvements.


Again. Global warming is not a crisis, nor man-caused. SO this 'evidence' is irrelevant.

Is it consistent to claim that a study done by oil companies is accurate on the effects of oil pollution and oil regulations and then to claim that a study done by the EPA on he effects of pollution is some how not "real data"?

Sure. Be suspect all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the crisis you want to save us from don't exist and evidence keeps coming in that this is just a delivery system for global fascism.
 
Going after agriculture doesn't excite the green lobby.

Yeah the so called green lobby is fine with eating genetically modified foods and all kinds of chemicals

Imagine that.
Oh they aren't. They just think there are too many mouths to feed and their mouths are the most important. So grow organic and without chemicals or modern farming techniques and damn the consequences to the rest of us unenlightened fucks.
 
----------------------------------Then how come every time the EPA issues a new regulation that reduces those things do you all cry about the costs?
In the current situation you are all crying about rules reducing pollutants.----------------

Show proof the tightening of the regulations improves life and health for one, and two is worth the loss of jobs and increased costs of living that make everyone's life more difficult and slow the economy.
You asked for it.
Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

04/14/2011: EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benef
^EPA settlement with the TVA will result in the TVA investing 5 billion to clean up their coal plants. Which will result in 2,000 less deaths a year, and save 20 billion yearly due to health benefits.

https://www.federalregister.gov/reg...-emission-guidelines-for-existing-sources-com
^New EPA regulations reducing lead(other toxic metal) and other harmful pollutants from solid waste incinerators will save at least 40 lives a year and a net of 80million dollars a year.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/fr21mr11m.pdf
^New EPA regulations limiting HCL, Hg, CO, TEQ and PM emissions from Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters will save a net of at least 16billion dollars a year by 2014

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2011-17600.pdf
^EPA rules mandating that Midwestern and southern power plans reduce PM NOx and SO2 pollution will save a net of 110 billion a year in 2014

The combined effect of the Obama EPA rules | Economic Policy Institute
^EPA ruels under Obama have a 2-1-201- benfit cost ratio

'Job-Killing' EPA Regulations for Chesapeake Bay Will Create 35 Times as Many Jobs as Keystone XL Pipeline | ThinkProgress
^EPA rules requiring a 25% reduction in pollution in the Chesapeake Bay has so far created 40 thousand jobs

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/green_economics/CERES_PERI_Feb11.pdf
^2010 EPA air regulations are estimated to create 300,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
^Since 1970 for every dollar spent on clean air regulation compliances $4-$8 dollars are created in economic benefits.

Evidence Mounts to Back EPA Mercury Rules, With Annual Benefits of $50 to $130 billion | ThinkProgress
^EPA mercury reducing regulations save 50-130billion yearly

Login to access the Oil & Gas Journal Subscriber Premium features.
^EPA regulations limiting benzene content in gasoline will save 5 billion a year by 2030.

To the Point, copyright 1999-2012 by Apple Pie Alliance and Senator John Marty
^EPA regulations limiting emissions from engines used for recreational non-road purposes saves a net of 3 billion dollars each year. Through lowered health care costs and higher mpg efficiency.

Epa Mercury | EPA limits mercury and other pollutants from cement plants - Los Angeles Times
^EPA regulations reducing mercury emissions and other major pollutants from power plants (excluding Nox and So2) save 10 billion a year; due to lower health care costs.

Train Pollution | Train, ship pollution targeted by EPA - Los Angeles Times
^--EPA Regulations limiting ship and train emissions such as Nitrogen and soot save 300 lives and a net of 300 million dollars a year.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordp...of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf
^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%
^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act reduced emissions of CFC's.
^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 are estimated to have saved the economy a total of 50 billion dollars in ten years. (or 15 billion a year).
1^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for
Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million, or 60-120% less.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...5ea39929f1ac1c42852574ba005c95ec!OpenDocument
^--EPA regulations limiting Hydrocarbons and NOx emissions from lawn mowers, and personal watercraft save 300 lives and 80 million dollars a year.

07/06/2010: EPA Proposal Cuts Pollution from Power Plants in 31 States and D.C. / Rule would reduce smog- and soot-forming emissions contributing to unhealthy air
^EPA regulations reducing SO2 and NOx emissions in 2010 from power plants estimated to save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars a year.

American Electric Power Takes Workers Hostage to Stop Pollution Controls | ThinkProgress
^EPA regulations requiring energy companies to reduce poisons pollution such as arsenic, mercury and lead would create over 350,000 jobs over a period of 5 years.

Pawlenty Stands Against Clean Air: "I Will Require Sunsetting of all Federal Regulations" | ThinkProgress
^New EPA regulations under Obama have a 4-1 to 22-1 benefit cost ration.
^Two new air quality rules made by the EPA will create 1.5 million jobs over the course of 5 years.

Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

Attacks By GOP Candidates On The EPA Threaten Iowa Families | ThinkProgress
^In total EPA regulations save over 160,000 lives each year.

Environmental Health Perspectives: Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control
^Regulations banning and limiting lead in paint, toys, gasoline and other materials save provide net savings of 181-269 billion. Each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control/keeping lead out of products produces more than 17 dollars in return.

Environmental Health Perspectives: Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control
Government Spending in the United States - Download All Years
Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2007 — Infoplease.com
^Government bans and regulations limiting lead content results in 5,360 less homicide per year.

THAT is the basis for any environmental improvement. The cost/benefit. There are already regulations being met. This is a tightening of the regs without proof of improvement.
Na actually there is plenty of proof, unless of course all you look at is publications from fracking/oil companies
Natural gas from shale worse for global warming than coal, Cornell study says | PennLive.com
^Fracking/shale is worse than coal

REPORT: Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century?
^Fracking/shale worse than coal

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/EnvAccount_MMN_AER0811.pdf
^Study finds that Fracking costs more than the net benefit it creates

-----Yes mercury in lgihtbubls is better then in drinking water/ air. Have any more stupid questions?-----

Oh I see... there's "Good Mercury" and bad mercury and it's status depends completely on how politically correct it is for ecofascists.
No dumbass there is Mercury that is in places that cause harm to human health and Mercury in places that does effect human health. Mercury in lightbulbs doesn't go into drinking water or the air (unless broken).
Plz read my comment fully before spewing stupidy.

Right. It's about taking away choices from the public for political control over a pair of crisis that doesn't exist (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Peak Oil) and the public won't willingly do because it's prohibitively expensive and foolish to 'fix' something that ain't broke.
So plz why making it so the public has lightbulbs that are energy efficient saving billions of dollars a year is so horrible.








---------Is it consistent to claim that a study done by oil companies is accurate on the effects of oil pollution and oil regulations and then to claim that a study done by the EPA on he effects of pollution is some how not "real data"?----------------------------

Sure. Be suspect all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the crisis you want to save us from don't exist and evidence keeps coming in that this is just a delivery system for global fascism.
Yes I am suspect of studies form oil companies of which say the exact opposite of all independent studies and studies done by the government
 
Again. Global warming is not a crisis, nor man-caused.
I see so according to you the death of tens of millions of people and the destruction of tens of trillions of dollars is not a crises.
1) Tropical storms have increased by 100% because of global warming
^Tropical storms stepping up with climate change - environment - 30 July 2007 - New Scientist
6,000 people die each year due to global warmings’ increase in tropical storms
^Crisis Prevention & Recovery | UNDP
Global warming’s effect on tropical storms cost the economy 60 billion dollars each year.
(Total increase in American cost x [total tropical storms/total Atlantic storms] = total cost)
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/hurr_122106a.pdf

2) Droughts. Droughts have increased by 300% since 1970 because of global warming.
Global Warming Linked to Increasing Drought
Drought's Growing Reach: NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor - News Release
The increase in droughts due to global warming kills 23,000 people and costs 45 billion every year.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
^
How Bad is the Texas Drought? "In Austin, They are Praying for a Hurricane" | ThinkProgress
His State In Record Heat Wave, Inhofe Bails On Climate Denier Conference: 'I Am Under The Weather' | ThinkProgress
^In 2011 Texas, Oklahoma and the southwest go through the worst drought in the area ever recorded.
^
"Worst Food Crisis of the 21st Century" Driven by "Worst Drought in 60 Years" in East Africa, as Climate Change Makes Reduced Rainfall a "Chronic Problem" | ThinkProgress
^2011 sees the worst drought in east Africa in 60 years.

3) Floods have increased by 500%
^Number of Disasters per Year | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Maps & Graphics library
The increase in floods due to global warming kills 20,000 people, and costs the economy 45 billion each year.
^http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001512/151208e.pdf
^
Mississippi Flood Causes Billions In Damage, While Representatives Deny Climate Pollution Threat | ThinkProgress
^Mississippi’s 2011 floods caused billions in damages.
^
AFP: Australian flood costs top $6.3 billion
^Flooding in 2010 in Australia expected to cost over 6 billion dollars.
^
Landsat satellite images reveal extent of historic North Dakota flooding
^In 2011 the Dakotas a mid-west have record and massive flooding.

4)
Corn & Soybean Meal Weekly Prices - 30th April
Facts About Corn
Warming Dents Corn And Wheat Yields - Science News
Environmental changes to blame for drop in yield of 'miracle rice'
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEFleKAglPMoWU4QED93hUFJXhXQQ&cad=rja
^Hotter nights/Global warming, and air pollution are linked to a 15% decline in rice yields.
^Farms produced 3.8% less corn, and 5.5% less wheat then they could of during 1980-2008 due to slightly higher temperatures. This increased corn prices by 6.4% and wheat by 18.9%.
^Global warming cost 21 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased corn yields.
^Global warming cost 40 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased wheat yields.
^Global warming cost 20 billion in the year 2009 due to decreased rice yields
^
Food Security Wanes As World Warms - Science News
^Global warming/climate change responsible for a decline in food yields such as cereals in The Former Soviet Union. Future warming/climate change will result in a decline in food yields and a spike in food costs.
^
August 12 News: Heat Wave Reduces Crop Harvests; Senate Democrats Urge White House to Act on Smog Rule | ThinkProgress
^The unprecedented heat wave that occurred in the United State in 2011caused corn yields to fall by 4.1%, soybeans by 5.2%, and wheat by 5.2%.
^
Breeding ozone-tolerant crops
^Scientists find that if current trends of ground level Ozone (which occurs due to fossil fuel emissions reacting with Carbons and sunlight) stay it will reduce soybean yields by 23% by 2050
^
Record Heat Causes Peanut Butter Prices to Skyrocket: "I Don't Remember A Year" We Had "So Little Moisture" | ThinkProgress
^Climate change in 2010-2011 caused peanut prices to increase by over 50%

5)
BBC News - Nitrogen pollution 'costs EU up to £280bn a year'
^Nitrogen pollution is estimated to cost Europe 100-500 billion dollars yearly. Extrapolating that data means that Nitrogen pollution costs America 100-500 billion yearly. And costs the world around 400-2000 billion each year.

6)
STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR
^Coal pollution kills as much as 30,000 people each year in America extrapolating means coal kills around 100,000 people each year in the world.

7)
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf
^Number of tornadoes has increased by 30% due to global warming.
Tornadoes are formed when hot air collides with cold air.
Usually when the hot air is below the cold air, when the hot air rises and the cold air falls it causes tornadoes to form.
^
Tornadoes total cost of damage statistics - states compared - Statemaster
^Total yearly cost to America of Global warming increase in tornadoes is over 7 billion yearly
^
When and Where Do Tornadoes Occur?
^America accounts for around 25% of all Tornadoes meaning worldwide global warming increase in tornadoes costs around over 20 billion.
^
Tornadoes fatalities statistics - states compared - StateMaster
^Tornadoes kill 4,000+ Americans yearly extrapolating means tornados kill 16,000 people yearly, meaning that global warming’s increase in tornadoes kills 4,000 yearly.
^*****
Tornado Season Breaks National, Local Records - Louisville News Story - WLKY Louisville
^Using data from 2008-2011 shows that tornado frequency has increased by more than 30%, possibly as high as 70%. This would mean that tornado activity due to global warming would now cost the world 30 billion dollars a year and kill 6,000 lives each year.
^
Southern tornadoes hit an economy already hurting | OregonLive.com
^Unprecedented tornadoes occur throughout the southern United States in 2011 killing over 300 people and costing billions of dollars.
^
Joplin: Deadliest Single Twister In 58 Years - Kansas City News Story - KMBC Kansas City
^Tornadoes hit Joplin damaging 30% of the city, killing almost 100 people.
^
‘Major Tornado Outbreak’ in Nine Central States Adding to Insurance Losses - Bloomberg
^Major tornado outbreaks occur in the Midwest.
^
Daily Kos: Tornado Outbreak Déjà Vu -- PDS Tornado Watch For STL East To KY -- Updated x17
^More tornadoes go through the south including through KY
^
BBC News - Massachusetts emergency after tornadoes kill four
^Unprecedented tornadoes sweep through New England.

8)
THE GROWING COST OF WILDFIRES
^Global warming’s increase in wildfires costs 1.2 billion yearly.
^
Where Wildfire Fatalities Occur | Who Dies in a Wildfire
^Global warming’s increase in wild fires causes tens of people to die.
^
Increasing number of wildfires is caused by global warming, study finds - The Boston Globe
^Since 1986 wildfires have increased by 400%, and acres burned has increased by 650%.
^
Large Trees Declining In Yosemite National Park, U.S.
^Global warming responsible for decline in size of trees, because it decreases snowpack which provides most of the water for growth.
^Smaller trees are less fire-resistance. The results are more and worse wildfires.
^
Bill McKibben: Wildfires And Spills In The Canadian Tar Sands | ThinkProgress
^Wildfires in Alberta cause the evacuation of several towns
9)
/4) Health care.
Study: zero emission vehicles could save $142 billion in health care costs
About Transportation & Climate Change: Transportation’s Role in Climate Change: Overview - DOT Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse
CO2 Emissions statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster
^Greenhouse gas emissions cause damage to lungs costing billions in health care costs.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost America 150 billion dollars each year, and kill 2,400 Americans a year.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost the world 600 billion each year, and kill around 10,000 people each year. (This only include lung disease)

10)
Global Warming Likely Causing More Heat Waves, Scientists Say
^Global Warming has increased the odds of heat waves by 6 times.
^
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...re-frequent-in-coming-decades-say-scientists/
^Europe’s 2003/2010 heat wave destroyed crops and killed tens of thousands of people.
^Russia’s heat wave in 2009 killed 50,000 people, and cost the nation 15billion dollars.
^Global warming increase in heat waves likely costs 60,000 people every year and likely costs the global economy over 15 billion dollars a year.
You are officially a dumbass
 
Again. Global warming is not man-caused.

Page Not Found - The Washington Post
^98% of scientists and 100% of climatologists conclude/agree that Man caused climate change/global warming is real

Carbon Dioxide Gallery - Global Warming Art
^Total atmospheric carbon has increased by 75% due to human activity.
^Total yearly human carbon emissions equal 2.5% of total atmospheric carbon (2010)

Earth is twice as dusty as in 19th century, research shows
^Dust in the atmosphere has increased by 100% over the last century.
Dust is mostly a natural aerosol. Dust reflects sunrays away from the earth meaning that the increased dust is cooling the earth.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
^The suns total irradiance is decreasing, meaning if the sun were the only variable the earth should be getting colder, but instead the earth is getting warmer.

Global Volcanism Program | Frequently Asked Questions | Has volcanic activity been increasing?
^Current Volcano trends if they were the only variable would have the earth cooling
Again you are officially a clueless dumbass
 
Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. oil and gas industry invested more than $71 billion in GHG mitigation technology. This far eclipses the federal government's $43 billion invested, and is nearly as much as the $74 billion invested by the rest of private industry combined.
so oil and gas companies have recognized there is a problem with it?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top