U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Drop by 3.8 Percent

CO2Alexmillos: DreamstimeAccording to Bloomberg BNA, the U.S. Energy Information Administration is reporting that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide are down significantly. Thanks largely to greater natural gas production made possible, in part, by fracking. From Bloomberg BNA:

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption and production declined 3.8 percent in 2012, reaching their lowest level since 1994, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Oct. 21.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions associated with the energy sector totaled 5,290 million metric tons in 2012, a decrease from 5,498 million metric tons in 2011, and a 12 percent decrease from a peak of 6,023 million metric tons in 2007, according to the EIA.

The decline came even as the U.S. economy grew by 2.8 percent in 2012, the EIA said in its report “U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2012.” That was the largest emissions decline recorded in a year with positive population growth as well, the agency said.

Reduced energy demand in 2012 meant the overall carbon intensity of the economy, expressed in carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, declined 6.5 percent that year, the EIA said. That is the largest annual drop observed since the agency began keeping records in 1949. Only 1952 and 1981 have recorded drops in the economy's carbon intensity greater than 5 percent, the agency said....

The shift from coal to natural gas is responsible for nearly 60 percent of the reductions, the report said. The remainder is due to increases in renewable and nuclear power generation, it said.

It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    you're welcome.

    /Gore

  • Sevo||

    Who says shutting down the gov't was a bad idea?

  • CE||

    Yeah, wouldn't it save a lot of energy and pollution if it were shut down permanently?

  • Sevo||

    Imagine the hot air that would go missing!

  • ||

    It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production.

    Nah, they're perfectly consistent about this: they oppose ALL energy production.

  • JWatts||

    They oppose most energy usage as well.

  • Jquip||

    Only yours. They're incapable of impoverishing themselves on their own dime.

  • Brett L||

    Al Gore and Prince Charles called in from their private jets to agree on their way to Davos.

  • CE||

    It's not surprising that people who are concerned about the environment don't want to pollute it with piles of radioactive waste that won't be safe for thousands of years.

    Opposing natural gas as an energy source does seem kind of stupid.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Miniscule piles in the grand scheme of things and they could be much, much smaller if we allowed for reprocessing not to mention they could be essentially non-existent if some Gen IV designs were brought online. Can I get a Thorium?! Amen!

  • sloopyinca||

    Agreed. The general belief is that nuke plants have to be massive when the better alternative is to dot the landscape with them diminishing the amount of material they use/store at any given time, hus decreasing the risks when/if an accident happens.

    Nuclear power is exceptionally safe. Utilizing the tech that exists for smaller-scale plants will continue the track record into the future.

  • SIV||

    Ford Nucleon demolition derbies!

  • ||

    Nevermind that radiation isn't remotely as dangerous as people think it is.

    We had three simultaneous meltdowns in Fukushima just a couple of years ago. Shouldn't we all be dying of radiation poisoning by now? Why is the sky not filled with the ashes of the burning wasteland? Where are the motorcycle gangs wearing football gear and demanding our oil?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, we do have Lord Humungous here.

  • Eitan||

    Yay thorium!!!

  • ||

    Wait, what?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Avatar.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Twelve years ago, the watermelons were all for natural gas. Reserves had fallen to 1960 levels, and it looked like natural gas potential was history. A few watermelons knew about horizontal drilling and fracking for unconventional gas, and actually promoted it. It was still in the early stages of commercialization, so it seemed like a "reasonable" concession for propaganda purposes.

    Then it turned out that unconventional gas had huge potential, and suddenly the watermelons were dead set against it.

    Watermelons only embrace energy technologies that don't work. It's really that simple.

  • AdamJ||

    Actually, when you boil it down, they are against people. They want less of them and want them doing less.

  • LarryA||

    Gas and nuke aren't good solutions because they don't hurt enough. They want solutions that require you to live the way they want you to. And die.

  • Russell||

    In other news, America become the world's largest energy producer as coal and gas production continued to soar.

  • Marshall Gill||

    This isn't good news for the long term. Increased government revenue will delay the ultimate and necessary implosion.

  • ||

    It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production.

    They would oppose cold fusion if it worked.

  • sloopyinca||

    They'd say it destroyed union labor (UMW)so 1%ers like the Koch's could get rich and destroyed families, nay civilization as we know it in places like Appalachia and the eastern slope of the Sierras.

  • ||

    That is correct.
    They don't want us to find alternatives to our energy supplies. They want us to stop using energy.

  • ||

    It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production.

    No it's not. As George R.R. Martin says, words are wind. Only morons like TEAM members listen to words and not actions. I don't care what "environmentalists" say they're for. I care what they do. And if they viciously and aggressively oppose the energy production methods that would be the best at attaining their purported goals, that means they are lying about what their true goals are. There can be no other conclusion.

    This is basic, basic stuff.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Episiarch,

    And if they viciously and aggressively oppose the energy production methods that would be the best at attaining their purported goals, that means they are lying about what their true goals are. There can be no other conclusion.


    Yes there is: They could all be schizophrenics.

  • John C. Randolph||

    They could all be idiots.

    Come to think of it, they could be schizophrenic idiots.

    -jcr

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be sure, and I think this is where OldMexican is going, there's always doublethink, which I think in some ways is a real thing.

    Though I mostly agree with you.

  • ||

    It is entirely too coincidental that environmentalists liked fracking until it turned out that fracking could actually be done on a large scale, and then they turned on it viciously. Even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt on fearing nuclear (which they don't deserve because France gets most of its power from nuclear and has been fine, so they have a real world example to look at), there is no possible benefit of the doubt with fracking. They liked it until they found that it could provide a lot of low-emissions energy.

    Once again, this leads to only one conclusion.

  • sloopyinca||

    What makes their hypocrisy especially egregious is their support of large-scale fracking in California's Kern Valley for decades. But once the Korporashuns (except, of course for Chevron, Oxy and Flying J) started making big money from it on higher-priced oil and natgas, they turned like Old Yeller.

    Fuck these assclowns.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    They aren't giving Oxy a pass anymore?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Strike that, misread.

  • ||

    OK, that leads one to two possible conclusions: they are environmentalists only so long as their hatred of corporations doesn't overpower their desire to "clean up the environment"; or they don't give a shit about the environment at all and actually would like to decrease overall energy production for their own twisted reasons.

    Neither option is anything but disgusting.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    What about they just hate people who don't agree with them and want us all to freeze to death in the winter, die in crashes of flimsy cars, be eaten by bedbugs, etc?

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't know which i is, but I can tell you that the oilfield companies (off-road in-use) more often than not are able to skirt the CARB regulations that their trucking brethren who move the product (on-road in-use) from the fields to the refineries, be they Long Beach or Bakersfield. And the frac tank manufacturers are likewise exempt from emission standards since they are operating stationary gear that is not energy-producing, like gensets.

    I work with these people all the time and am pretty familiar with what goes on up there. The oil business in California is possibly the least-regulated industry in the state for one reason or another. And between them and the farmers, they tend to have heir way, whereas the truckers get bent over pretty hard on the CARB stuff. Methinks it has a lot to do with campaign contributions.

  • CatoTheElder||

    What you say may be true for the upstream business, but it certainly does not hold for CA refining. CARB is quite strict when it comes to refining.

    Certainly the CA state government has a friendly relationship with the upstream business. It's one of the few states that does not have a severance tax on O&G production. Perhaps it's a legacy of extraction industries in CA.

  • sloopyinca||

    Could be the case, as I do not interact with the refining side of the business very much other than with rolling stock, which they tend to get treated on equal footing with production and exploration on.

    Can you enlighten me on the CARB regs for refining? I'd like to know a bit more about it, as it may help me professionally.

  • Jquip||

    "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." -- Ronald Regean

    Our three, three possible conclusions are hatred, indifference, ignorance, and religious cults.

  • ||

    ...or they don't give a shit about the environment at all and actually would like to decrease overall energy production for their own twisted reasons.

    They do want to decrease energy production for their own twisted reasons. Although, to be fair, they actually believe that saving the planet literally means returning to a quasi-agrarian low-tech society.

    I'm completely serious. Talk to a few of them. They are dead serious about their opposition to industrial society. They really believe that society should completely get rid of large factories and industrial agricultural and everyone should live in small communies and eat locally grown organic produce while wearing their artisanal shoes and riding their hand-made bicycles and hand-woven, hand-carded, wool shirts, sheared from the grass-fed locally raised heirloom sheep.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The Bolshevists/Soviets were all for consumer goods too, until they discovered that central planning got its ass kicked by market-ish based economies. Suddenly "consumer culture" became "bad."

    It probably predates The Affluent Society but that book is a good signpost for the change in attitude.

  • cavalier973||

    The most annoying thing I find about the Cold War is that it would have been over years earlier, had not our FedGov kept the Soviets limping along.

  • ||

    Yes. When capitalism turned out to offer consumers more choices, they came up with this idiotic propaganda line that too many choices were just too confusing for our little brains to handle. Socialism would relieve us of the stress of making decisions for ourselves.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    And we didn't even come close to a free market, just a free scented market.

  • PapayaSF||

    that means they are lying about what their true goals are

    Perhaps I am too trusting, but for most of them, I don't think it's conscious lying. It's more of a utopian/reformer mindset that tends to see what is real as flawed and the future as rosy. So new energy sources seem wonderful, until they are real, when the downsides (real or imagined) become the focus. See also: objections to windmills, and large-scale solar systems in deserts.

  • OldMexican||

    U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption and production declined 3.8 percent in 2012, reaching their lowest level since 1994, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Oct. 21.


    I'm sure the enviros will not be happy until everybody drives one of these and nothing else.

  • ||

    Can we get one of those in train form?

  • ||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I believe that children are our future. Teach them well, and give them HIV. Show them all the antibodies they possessed inside! Give them oral sex to make it easier. Let the children's laughter remind us to ask another boy to send us explicit pictures of himself.

    I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
    If I fail, if I succeed
    At least I'll live as I believe
    No matter what they take from me
    They can't take away my dignity
    Because the greatest love of all
    Is happening to me
    I found the greatest love of all
    Inside of me
    The greatest love of all
    Is easy to achieve
    Learning to love yourself
    It is the greatest love of all

  • Flak Flak||

    What are your views on the education issue? How can the achievement gap be closed? I haven't heard the kind of left-libertarian propaganda I can refute in three seconds about that issue from you. You are probably the most intelligent left-libertarian here, you really should be writing this magazine. I sense the motivations for your left-libertarianism are very different from that of the other left-libertarians.

  • Sevo||

    ?^
    Sarc or stupidity?

  • Jordan||

    It's American. So stupidity.

  • seguin||

    It reads like an anonbot manifesto, but without the sweet promise of counterfeit ugg boots.

  • sloopyinca||

    Burns is being represented by Willie C. Weaver — who also serves as a City of Albany Municipal Court judge, Dougherty County court clerk officials said Thursday afternoon.

    No ethics clause for judges in Georgia? I never payed attention to the goings-on while I was sloopyinga, but this comes across as a real conflict of interest.

  • seguin||

    Oh, you're sloopy in CA. I just now got that. For some reason I assumed you were a Mesoamerican fellow that really liked the McCoys.

  • Spoonman.||

    Incas weren't Mesoamerican. That's Aztecs, Olmecs, Mayas.

  • OldMexican||

    Reduced energy demand in 2012 meant the overall carbon intensity of the economy, expressed in carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, declined 6.5 percent that year, the EIA said.


    Oh, my sweet God! What will that do to the Carbon Credit futures market?!?

    Al Gore! You... swindler!

  • playa manhattan||

    This was Obama's plan all along. He lowered CO2 emissions by destroying the economy. He's a genius!

  • ||

    This will be a cornerstone of his legacy. He saved the planet!

  • Marshall Gill||

    Obama's plan? It is the blueprint for the entire environmental movement. The only way to "save the environment" is for human beings to live like they did centuries ago.

  • ||

    Exactly. An economic collapse is exactly what they want. They couldn't give two shits about the unemployment rate. They think everyone should be hand weeding their organic farms anyway, not working in a fucking factory or flipping burgers produced by giant corporate ag companies.

  • cavalier973||

    Except, of course, for the FedGov elite. They'll still have their high-tech gadgets, steak dinners, and immaculately landscaped golf courses. Knowing that people are starving to death only makes such luxuries that much more enjoyable.

  • ||

    So what you're saying is that The Hunger Games was a documentary sent back in time to warn us?

  • seguin||

    The seas have begun to recede!

    Oh wait, here they come again...

    NO NO THE'YRE receding!

    Oh, no, wait...

  • Flak Flak||

    This is a great time to remind you guys of American oil production trends. America still produces significantly less oil than it did in 1970, despite technological innovation and political hang wringing.

  • ||

    The US use to burn much more oil for electricity then it does now (Like all of New Jersey and New York)

    They burn gas and coal now for that.

    Kind of hard to say "despite technology" when the technology has been innovated to use gas and coal.

  • AdamJ||

    What about total oil consumption? They could also be selling oil to China or the rest of the world who no doubt are using more oil than they did in 1970.

    It probably just got too expensive and too regulated, and depleted to a degree.

    Or we made a deal with the Saudis that we would limit oil production so they would allow Israel to exist, and Israel would in turn buy guns and tanks from us. Or some such bullshit like that. Whatever it is, I'm sure the CIA is involved.

  • prolefeed||

    This is a great time to remind you guys of American oil production trends.

    So, what you're saying is that when one's comparative advantage is to produce more natural gas and coal and less oil, one will tend to do that?

    Show me a graph for total energy production from all sources for all of North American including Canada, and then maybe we can talk about what that chart means.

  • PapayaSF||

    If you look at oil and gas together, we are doing pretty well.

  • Ron||

    "It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production."
    Your puzzled at this well the rest of already know the environmentalist are not for the environment they are for control of all the people by controlling how they can live, eat and heat their homes or even go to work and how they work and all the idiots will go along because they believe in the false flag of the environment.

  • sloopyinca||

    The only people stupider that enviro-nutballs are the San Francisco Giants front office.

    Somebody was passing around the good shit during negotiations is all I can think.

  • ||

    I'm relieved since Ned Colletti has a habit of collecting broken-down ex-Giants.

    Of course Barry Zito is still out there...

  • sloopyinca||

    Sorry about Los Doyers choking, man. We were looking forward to a World Series game with you.

  • ||

    Yeah, choking is the right word. I was optimistic but after blowing Games 1 and 2 it was doubtful they'd comeback.

    Well there's always next season for a Reason day at the stadium.

  • sloopyinca||

    We tried to organize one this season but apparently not enough people could get off on work-release to go.

  • playa manhattan||

    Nobody told me. I was at 2 of the playoff games.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well then, thanks for mentioning it to us, you bastard.

  • playa manhattan||

    My parents have season tickets. I didn't get invited all season until my mom got the flu (from my kids, hehe).

    BTW, did you see my reply about the ski trip? How about Mammoth so the wymenz can go shopping and leave the fun to us?

  • sloopyinca||

    We're down for it. Baby #2 is en route sometime in the next 5 weeks, so Banjos is out anyway. She can come up and look after the young-uns while I am out trying to break a leg.

    When did you have in mind?

  • playa manhattan||

    The snowpack will tell us. After January, though. I'm doing the desert in Nov, and Hawaii in Dec, so I'm all out of fuck off days until the new year.

    If it has been awhile, you might want to take some lessons on the trash hill that looms on the horizon. Mammoth is serious business...

  • sloopyinca||

    Really? Did you just basically call me a pussy?

  • playa manhattan||

    No, no, no. Well, kind of. You said that it had been a number of years since you skied. If you want to ski together, you have to, well... ...not suck. Otherwise, it would just be a carpool with lunch beers.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you want to ski together,

    Um, no homo?

    Seriously though, I'll be fine on intermediate hills on day 1 and will be going down the easier black diamonds on day 2. On day 3 I'll probably be hospitalized, but at least that won't ruin your day.

  • Brett L||

    This was the last time I skied. Only I broke my collarbone, so the on resort clinic trip was about 5 minutes long. Xray, "yep, its broke, here's a sling".

  • Tony||

    Maybe you should stop thinking "environmental activists" are the only other people in this debate.

    I support nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, but I also recognize it wouldn't exist without heavy government subsidy (making libertarian shilling for it completely ridiculous). But Fukushima should make clear that it's hardly the best possible alternative.

    If libertarians are in favor of an expensive, necessarily heavily government subsidized form of energy production, why are they so vehement in their opposition to actually clean energy?

  • sloopyinca||

    How the fuck would it only exist with heavy government subsidy?

    Oh that's right, because the government imposes barriers to entry and disallows private ownership/possession of nuclear materials, and makes the process to build and operate plants both time-consuming and exceptionally expensive by drawing out every step in the process and constantly suing companies with the EPA for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

    TL/DR? Fuck you, you disingenuous twat.

  • Jordan||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So of course the answer is to go with even more expensive and dirty in its own way "green" energy, right? You do know that the tailings from rare earth mines are considered radioactive waste, don't you? No rare earths, no subsidized teslas and windmills.

    Solar has its own nasties as well but not quite as bad. On the plus side it's by far the most expensive of the energy generation options and it has a fatal flaw. We like to call it "night."

  • Sevo||

    ..."We like to call it "night.""

    Or, "clouds": Strange atmospheric activity surprising to greenies.

  • ||

    About the only subsidy nuclear gets is the liability limiting Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

    Any further subsidies are pretty much offset by the high permitting and regulatory cost the industry is saddled with.

    Incidentally repealing Price–Anderson and all other energy subsidies has been part of the LP Platform since the 1970s.

    I can't speak for everyone hear but when I speak in favor of nuclear energy, I assume that it is understood I am talking about an unsubsidized nuclear industry. Why, because I ',m a libertarian and I don't think I should have to constantly add the SLD, especially at Hit & Run.

  • ||

    Tony, or whoever runs him, has been on this website for YEARS. You would think by now he would argue against real world libertarians and not the ones that exist in his head.

  • ||

    Nuclear doesn't have to be subsidized. It would do just fine if you would just let them build new plants without navigating a Kafkaesque maze of regulations.

  • seguin||

    But if we didn't have a byzantine oppressive bureaucracy, who would red Kafka? Silly libertarian!

  • seguin||

    *read

  • CatoTheElder||

    There is no reason that libertarians are against any form energy. People should be free to develop energy technologies, commercialize them, and make lots of money, or go bankrupt trying.

    Libertarians just take exception of using the state to steal money to fund the schemes of politically connected "crony capitalists". The fact is that all your clean energy schemes involve this sort funding.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, I don't think it's wrong for libertarians to disapprove of pollution, and some forms of energy are better than others on that score.

  • ||

    Everything is going to cause some kind of pollution. It's just different for different technologies.

  • ||

    Heh: A comparison between North Korean propaganda paintings and the covers of US news magazines

  • sloopyinca||

    Meh. What are they supposed to do, show our "leaders" while they're farting? As it is, they are obviously showing them smelling their own farts, hence the gleeful expressions on their faces.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I've been to Beijing where the building depicted is. It's an impressive building, seriously impressive architecture. Even Ayn Rand would like it. But the sky is NEVER so blue, and there are no mountains in the background.

  • AdamJ||

    Ayn Rand would not like a building that has to work so hard to defy gravity. It's architecture as art, not as functional. The exact opposite of efficient.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, why not?
    "Builders of Obama's health website saw red flags"
    Yes, I'm sure they did.
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol.....915222.php

  • sloopyinca||

    By "red flags" they mean "opportunity to ripoff the American taxpayers more than they already had by way of shoddy work and poor quality control processes".

    I know a lot of libertarians are for fee-based government. We also need to go to fee-based government contracting. You get paid a flat fee to get the job done. If you don't you go to jail instead of getting a second contract to fix your shitty work.

    Thoughts?

  • ||

    Wouldn't work. No one would take the contracts because government specs are notoriously horrible and no one would want to risk someone deciding arbitrarily that they didn't "get the work done" because the spec was vague or something.

    So basically, no government contracting would get don...hey, wait a second...

  • Spoonman.||

    In one internship I had to deal with the City of Houston spec book.

    Oh fuck.

  • Sevo||

    Per Epi.
    I've bid and won gov't contracts but I've passed on most because of the poor specs.

  • SweatingGin||

    My favorite was the crazy requirements on RFPs.

    One (maybe all) state university in Illinois had the great requirement to certify that the bidder had never been involved in the slave trade.

    Little known fact? East India company evolved into all the Silicon Valley software companies you see today.

  • Sevo||

    "One (maybe all) state university in Illinois had the great requirement to certify that the bidder had never been involved in the slave trade."

    Rats!
    They caught on to my monocle-polishing slave maidens in the bunker!

  • seguin||

    One (maybe all) state university in Illinois had the great requirement to certify that the bidder had never been involved in the slave trade.

    So, what you're saying is that they wouldn't work for anyone who had subcontracted for the IRS?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Did the red flags have a gold star on them, or a hammar-and-sickle logo?

  • Sevo||

    If you read the comments, they must have had "BUUUUUUUSH" written on them.
    5 years and counting; it's still Bush's Fault(tm).

  • cavalier973||

    So...the US is not doing its part to feed the plants.

    "Crops are currently starved of CO2 in a similar way to being starved of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, light etc. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 can thus be regarded as a plant stress, which weakens them and makes them inefficient. At higher levels of CO2 this stress is reduced, and the plant copes better with all other types of stress, including heat and cold, atmospheric pollution, root pathogens, as well as shortages of water, minerals etc."
  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, because all of the emissions are coming from power plants, they come out of smokestacks that point them at the upper atmosphere. That's how we're able to both starve crops of CO2 and put too much of it in the upper atmosphere at the same time.
    -AGW Proponent

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    CO2 is heavier than N2 or O2 so the best you can claim is that the atmosphere is well mixed and the composition is relatively uniform throughout the column. The alternative is that CO2 has to settle closer to the ground where the plants are.

    And yes I know you were being facetious.

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    Eat more Quinoa to save the earth and your body.

  • Redmanfms||

    39g of carbs

    For a one cup serving? Jesus.

    And only 8g of protein, whole wheat has more protein per 1 cup serving than that.

    Out of curiosity, how exactly is it going to "save the earth?"

  • seguin||

    Because organic and Whole Foods and unicorns, that's why! Silly libertarian!

  • ||

    Reminder: Lots of people still view wealth as a zero-sum game

    "Our future will bring more wealthy people than ever before, but also more poor people," he writes. "Rather than balancing our budget with higher taxes or lower benefits, we will allow the real wages of many workers to fall — and thus we will allow the creation of a new underclass."

    Remember, Cowen isn't adding or subtracting anything from what's already happening. He's merely forecasting based on current trends: middle-class American jobs being eliminated by automation and outsourcing, downward pressure on wages for all but the most skilled, growing inequality between the wealthy and everyone else, and elected officials who don't seem capable of slowing those trends, let alone stopping them.

    And that's not all. Cowen foresees a future in which employers constantly measure individual workers' performance "with oppressive precision," the better to weed out underperformers quickly; a future in which retirees, their savings exhausted, move to newly built shantytowns (like "the better dwellings you might find in a Rio de Janeiro favela") in low-cost states like Texas; a future in which the new underclass, instead of rebelling against the elite, consoles itself with online entertainment and scientifically improved narcotics to make life palatable.

    Luddites going to Ludd!

  • ||

    I also like how he takes 'opiate of the masses' quite literally.

  • ||

    I swear, this fantasy of massive wage gaps and "new underclasses" and shantytowns and shit is so prevalent and so vivid for some people that I have to wonder if they actually get off on it in some way. Kind of like how a closeted, self-hating gay person might seem to be focusing on the evils of gay people having sex a lot, to the point where they always seem to have a lot of detail about that "evil" gay sex.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, there are forces creating wage gaps and underclasses. Generations of welfare dependency will do that. So will massive immigration from the Third World, though most libertarians don't want to admit that.

    The trouble with the left is that they see the results as proof of the evils of free enterprise, when what they are seeing is the result of socialism (welfare) and open borders driving down wages at the bottom end (supply and demand).

  • kbolino||

    1. Money is not wealth.
    2. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
    3. Poverty is extrinsic.
    4. Markets are not elastic.
    5. Labor is not fungible.
    6. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Remove the fallacies from your argument, and try again.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Measured in gold terms wealth has decreased 98% since 1913.

    (or just fill in whatever bullshit statistic goldbugs use to devalue prosperity)

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    Measured in gold terms wealth has decreased 98% since 1913.


    You're confusing wealth with the purchasing power of the dollar. Goldbugs never made that argument. You're as mendacious as you are economically-ignorant.

  • CatoTheElder||

    PB is especially incoherent tonight. He really ought to get back on his meds.

    1913 M2 Money Supply $16 billion

    2013 M2 Money Supply $10,770 billion

  • CatoTheElder||

    Cost of sirloin steak, $/lb

    1913 - $0.243/lb
    2013 - $5.140/lb

    Cost increase = 2015%
    Relative value of $ = 4.7%, or a decrease of about 95%.

    Cost of crude oil $/bbl

    1913 - $0.95/bbl
    2013 - $97.80/bbl

    Cost increase = 10,100%
    Relative value of $ = 1.0%, or a decrease of about 99%.

  • ||

    It's amazing how devoid of insight your quips are.

  • sloopyinca||

    They're talking relative poverty, and in that regard they're right.

    Nevermind the fact that a poor person in 2013 has a markedly better lifestyle and level of comfort than the dukes of the 1600's or the upper-middle class of 100 years ago. But these fucks don't care about a geometric progression when it comes to making the entire world better off. They only care about fucking over those that actually make the world better for their own sake.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, but dumbfuck goldbugs tell me the US Dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913!

    How can we be so prosperous with the dollar nearly worthless?

  • sloopyinca||

    Prosperity doesn't have anything to do with the value of the dollar, you stupid asshole. Think of caveman days. Was the only way to measure prosperity tied to the currency that wasn't even in use yet? Or did development of the human species continue regardless of the fact that no currency existed?

    You know, I don't often pay attention to you because your arguments are stale and predictable. But sometimes you are just too much to bear and I have to chime in. I really wish you'd go away or at least change your shtick to being a SoCon douche for a while. Because the douche Proggie thing is just...old.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Prosperity doesn't have anything to do with the value of the dollar

    That is my point - which goldbugs and Fed critics cannot grasp for some reason.

    Forgive me for using you to illustrate the point.

  • sloopyinca||

    But that doesn't mean that wealth, individual wealth, can't be dramatically impacted by the value or devaluation of the dollar. And since libertarianism, or even classical liberalism!, at its core cares about individual rights, then the manipulation of the dollar by government is wrong.

    So sorry, I didn't mean to give you the impression that it wasn't wrong...just that in the grand scheme of things, mankind will continue to geometrically improve his prosperity regardless of how the governments manipulate the currency and create winners and losers on a whim.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The amount of currency has to be artificially manipulated to adjust to an expanding population.

    I'm not that old and I have been alive for # 200 million and # 300 million in the US.

    Asset valuations would be absurd if the money supply remained constant.

  • sloopyinca||

    The amount of currency has to be artificially manipulated to adjust to an expanding population.

    [citation required - please show your work]

  • Jordan||

    The amount of grain has to be artificially manipulated to adjust to an expanding population, comrade.

  • cavalier973||

    Your second statement is probably inarguable.

    Your first statement is an assumption based on a poor understanding of how money works.

    Your third statement is one of preference and opinion, and therefore unenlightening.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    The amount of currency has to be artificially manipulated to adjust to an expanding population.


    Who told you that that is the reason for the expansion of the money supply? Do you even understand banking, or money for that matter?

    Asset valuations would be absurd if the money supply remained constant.


    You mean that people could not value their assets before 1913? Please, tell us more!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Quit listening to Glenn Beck to get your financial education, Old Mexican.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    Quit listening to Glenn Beck to get your financial education


    That is the measure of your ignorance and arrogance, Buttwipe, that you would think that Beck is a teacher of sound economics (while at the same confusing basic economics with "finance."

    The money supply is not being increased to accomodate a larger population. There is NO relationship, NONE, between the growth of the population and the growth of the money supply. The reason is because that is not the reason why the Fed, and central banks, increase the money supply.

    Instead of defending your views (such as they are) you accuse me of learning what I have been learning since 1998 from Glenn Beck (of all people). Forget Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Schumpeter, Bohn-Bawerk, Menger... Nah. I must've been listening to the Beckster, according to your small mind.

  • seguin||

    Yeah but those people aren't on Intrade doing trades and stocking shorts, so fuck 'em. Amirite, PB?

  • ||

    goldbugs and Fed critics

    I like how this mysteriously expanded to include any critic of the FED.

    As if one has to be a goldbug to point out that the FED has not only failed at doing what it is supposed to do these past 100 years but actually has made what problems it was supposed to solve worse.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    How did the Fed fail (other than the Great Depression)? We are astonishingly prosperous.

    "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz, Friedman's coauthor]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

    Ben Bernanke

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    How did the Fed fail (other than the Great Depression)?


    The stated purpose for the Fed was to stabilize prices and stop financial meltdowns. It failed on the first one and made the second one much worse. It hasn't even achieved keeping unemployment under control, the after-the-factly made-up reason for its existence.

  • Jordan||

    The Fed's job is to funnel wealth from the poor and middle class to the financial sector. It has been an unqualified success.

    Some other successes:
    - eviscerated purchasing power
    - eviscerated the savings rate
    - inflated one bubble after another
    - enabled explosive growth in government spending
    - made capital artificially cheap and labor artificially expensive

  • CatoTheElder||

    Money is supposed to function as a store of value.

    The Fed has utterly failed to uphold the value of money. (see comment above)

    The wealthy, of course, keep a minimum of their wealth in cash. The poor have no such option, and get to watch what little they have deteriorate in value.

  • Banjos||

    Yes, Shrieky, we all know money isn't wealth. But that doesn't mean that fucking with the money supply can't have serious repercussions on wealth creation.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, Banjos, there you go calling shreek on one more of his misdirections!
    How cruel of you to join the crowd!

  • seguin||

    Even dainty ladyhands are welcome at a mass PB beatdown.

    /nolibertarianwomen

  • cavalier973||

    Prosperity and wealth is created by the free exchange of goods and services in the marketplace; market participants do this in spite of government meddling.

    The devaluation of the dollar has a variety of bad results: it damages its function as a medium of exchange. It effects the "boom-bust" cycle that is sometimes assumed to be a natural feature of the free market. It transfers wealth and power to government and the crony capitalists--especially those in the finance industry. It makes it more difficult for firms to plan, which means higher instances of malinvestment and slower economic growth.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I agree with your first sentence however all the traits in the second paragraph were far more pronounced before the Fed was created.

  • cavalier973||

    Which brings us back to the statement you find ridiculous: that the dollar has lost 98% of its value. Do you have evidence that the dollar lost that much value prior to the Federal Reserve's existence?

  • seguin||

    No.

    But what he does have is this quote by Milton Friedman: "I ... like ... Fed".

    That counts as an argument, right?

  • Jordan||

    Of course the economy grew at a faster rate prior to the Fed's creation.

  • ||

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    No.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Here's CPI history for past 200 years:

    CPI
    1813 ....... 58
    1913 ....... 30
    2013 ...... 702

    Source: Minneapolis Federal Reserve

    So, yeah, the $ has lost 96% of its value since the Fed was founded.

    And, yeah, the $ actually increased in value in the 100 years before the Fed's founding.

  • CatoTheElder||

  • CatoTheElder||

    43% of people who now qualify for Medicaid are classified as "obese".

    Source: Left-wing ThinkProgress

    At no time in history were fat people thought to be poor.

    Neither could they afford to indulge in self-destructive luxuries. 38% of Medicaid recipients are smokers and 10% heavy drinkers.

  • PapayaSF||

    The prog explanation is that capitalism is making the poor fat by producing processed food that doesn't contain real nourishment, and by forcing the poor to live in "food deserts."

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    Report in which the IMF recommends confiscating private wealth in an effort to protect the Status Quo in Government

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    But Fox News morons keep saying that Obama won't let us drill here!

    Then when proven wrong they say he won't let us drill on federal land.

    Then, when proven wrong again, they say he is a "Marxist Muslin" who wants to radically transform America.

  • Sevo||

    "Obama Sets Drilling Limits, Continues War On Oil"
    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-.....z2iVAiEsQy

    "Obama Administration Imposes Five-Year Drilling Ban on Majority of Offshore Areas"
    http://naturalresources.house......tID=267985

    Less than a minute of searching, two-link limit, you lying piece of shit.

  • Mike M.||

    Still waiting for that last section of the Keystone XL Pipeline to get approved by the way. Waiting, and waiting, and waiting..........

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

    The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03......html?_r=0

    And we just leased a 38 million acre tract in the Gulf of Mexico.

    IBD are liars - I don't know your other source.

  • Sevo||

    "IBD are liars"

    Not shown, just an assertion by a proven liar.
    Oh, and there are no liars like the current administration and the NYT.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is no "war on oil" you idiot.

    January 26, 2012 11:57 AM

    The Obama administration announced plans Thursday morning to lease out 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling and exploration in hopes to increase domestic oil production.

    According to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the areas to be leased out could hold 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They'll begin taking bids on June 20, according to a Department of the Interior announcement.

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ad.....31643.html

    Why won't IBD admit this?

  • Sevo||

    "Why won't IBD admit this?"

    You piece of shit, there's nothing to "admit".
    Your fave liar says "no" to most all of it, then says "yes" to a small hunk over there, and slimy liars like you try to claim 'it's all different now!'
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is no war on oil, you moron. IBD made it up to sell their rag.

    US Drilling has tripled since early 2009 according to Baker-Hughes (the industry almanac).

  • Sevo||

    "US Drilling has tripled since early 2009 according to Baker-Hughes (the industry almanac)."
    So Obama shut it down entirely and now he's allowing some?
    Go fuck your daddy, you lying piece of shit.

  • ||

    I like how shrike posted an article written before the gulf spill and before Obama closed down off shore drilling.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama didn't close down offshore drilling, you poorly informed fool.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|10.22.13 @ 10:13PM|#
    "Obama didn't close down offshore drilling, you poorly informed fool."

    See, he only cut it by 99%, so he really didn't 'close it down'.
    Got it, you lying piece of shit.

  • ||

    Mmmmm, yeah, slurp that Obama cock.

  • Hyperion||

    ButtFace no care about lies, care about getting head up hero statist arse, feel good!

  • SweatingGin||

    insurance companies meeting with White House.

    I figured the death spiral meeting would be around February.

  • Brandybuck||

    Imagine if you can do that with the Federal budget...

  • Hyperion||

    Thanks a lot, you fucking cocksuckers. I have to bring my plants in tomorrow so the frost from global warming won't kill them. I've lived in MD for 5 years and I have never had to worry about frost killing my plants in Oct, before now, you fucking assholes. Cause you know, I know that it's you politician Gawds who control the weather, and not the star that we orbit or anything like that, so I think it's time that we skin ya'll alive to save the planet.

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    better call sol.

  • sloopyinca||

    Did a progressive witch doctor stand outside your house and sing this?

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, and I shot that mofo and fed him to the polar bears.

  • ||

    And did you then attempt to counter with this?

  • Hyperion||

    NO

  • Austrian Anarchy||


    Thanks a lot, you fucking cocksuckers. I have to bring my plants in tomorrow so the frost from global warming won't kill them. I've lived in MD for 5 years and I have never had to worry about frost killing my plants in Oct, before now, you fucking assholes. Cause you know, I know that it's you politician Gawds who control the weather, and not the star that we orbit or anything like that, so I think it's time that we skin ya'll alive to save the planet.


    I suspected there would be a downside to this lowered carbon emissions jazz, but I never thought it would be so serious as to threaten the common plant.

  • ||

    It's not a mystery at all.

    They aren't interested in nuclear or natural gas because the use of nuclear and natural gas will allow us to continue consuming large amounts of energy and maintaining an industrial economy.

    Their goal is to force us to "change our lifestyles" in ways that dramatically reduce our energy consumption. It is a massive economic reengineering project. Force people to convert from driving to work to using mass transit or bicycles. Force people to give up air conditioning and technological gadgets and return to a kind of quasi-agrarian low-tech communal society.

    They don't WANT to really solve the problem of how to maintain our current lifestyle with new baseload energy supplies. They want us to have less energy so that we CAN'T maintain that lifestyle.

  • Hyperion||

    They want us to have less energy so that we CAN'T maintain that lifestyle.

    And that applies to their lifestyle equally, amirite

  • Hyperion||

    ???

  • seguin||

    Oh, of course. They won't be able to enjoy NASCAR, or outboard motors, or things like that.

    Yachts being unaffected is just a quirk, we so swear.

  • SusanM||

    OT: Been trolling TP comments again - if you need to laugh at insane Obamabots I've got some doozies here in the awfully nested comments. I think I've got a talent for this...

    http://thinkprogress.org/healt.....e-economy/

  • Hyperion||

    Well, we only care about gathering another female libertarian(the rarest of all creatures in the multiverse), into the fold, sweety.

  • seguin||

  • ||

    SoundMusic, Inc.
    Susan Montgomery , there is no liberty being taken away, whatsoever. In fact, there is liberty being granted by the ACA in that employers no longer will have the whip and chain of employees losing their health care if they lose their job. There is no moral argument of freedom and autonomy that allows Americans too die for lack of health care, unless, of course, you are making the argument that the white supremacists did. Is that what you're doing? The big morons, like you, are the ones who are saying that people should be allowed to die so that you don't have to put up with a black president's plan to help Americans who need it. Your very sad and sick comparison has backfired on you, and you are in possession of no morals at all. Thanks for exposing your hateful hypocrisy and FOX-fed idiocy, you've done my job for me.

    Well that about sums it up: all they've got are lies, Newspeak, and ad hominens.

  • ||

    And projection. As always.

  • Paul.||

    Susan Montgomery , there is no liberty being taken away, whatsoever. In fact, there is liberty being granted by the ACA

    Hey, Susan "Tony" Montgomery, Liberty can't be granted. It can be taken away, but it can't be granted.

  • ||

    It wasn't Susan Montgomery who made that comment, it was a commenter calling itself SoundMusic, Inc. replying to Susan Montgomery's criticism of O'care.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Title of the article: "No, Obamacare Isn’t Creating A Part-Time Economy".

    Let me give you an ancedote about how fucking mendacious Progs are. About a month ago, my department head at the uni I teach for told me that he attended a meeting with the bean counters who told the gathered department heads that when Obamacare hits, if they gave any adjunct professors enough credit hours to teach that would enable them to claim benefits via the new law, that the crania of the department heads would be on a spike.

  • Hyperion||

    Let me give you an ancedote about how fucking mendacious Progs are.

    NO, it ain't true, HM, it ain't true!

  • cavalier973||

    I like how the "evidence" that 1.6 million full-time jobs were created is an unsourced tweet.

  • ||

    Why did I click the link? WHY!!!

  • SweatingGin||

    OT: From Jesse walker's twitter the inverted Elmo

    Sounds dirty, looks... Disturbing.

  • Agammamon||

    I might have something useful to add to this comment, *if* the idiot who took that video could have held the camera still long enough to see what the hell he was filming.

  • ||

    White House official fired after being outed as Twitter leaker

    Jofi Joseph, a director in the non-proliferation section of the National Security Staff at the White House, has been surreptitiously tweeting under the moniker @natsecwonk, a Twitter feed famous inside Washington policy circles since it began in February, 2011 until it was shut down last week. Two administration officials confirmed that the mystery tweeter was Joseph, who has also worked at the State Department and on Capitol Hill for Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Joe Biden. Until recently, he was part of the administration's team working on negotiations with Iran.

    During his time tweeting under the @natsecwonk name, Joseph openly criticized the policies of his White House bosses and often insulted their intellect and appearance. At different times, he insulted or criticized several top White House and State Department officials, including former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Secretary of State John Kerry, and many many others.

    The Daily Beast saved a long record of @natsecwonk's tweets prior to the shutting down of his Twitter feed.

    “I'm a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me,” he once tweeted.

    Hahahaha, Most Transparent Administration Ever.

  • SweatingGin||

    vacuous cipher

    Would make a good reason handle. Or twitter.

    Looked through the article to see if he leaked anything interesting. Only snarky there.

  • Paul.||

    Apparently, @natsecwonk hadn't heard of this NSA thingy his boss was workin' on.

  • SweatingGin||

    Via @iowahawk:

    Want to see
    Obamacare prices without a login?

    I grabbed the JSON (22MB!) version and a PDF in case it gets zapped. Now we can get some real statistics.

  • Jordan||

    Holy shit, why is VA so much more expensive than the rest of the country?

  • seguin||

    Jesus, a 22MB Javascript array?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Japan’s sexual apathy is endangering the global economy

    People in Japan are so averse to romantic relationships that the country's media even has a name for it: sekkusu shinai shokogun, or "celibacy syndrome," according to a widely circulated Guardian story on the country's low rates of marriage, childbearing and even sex.

    But this is more than a story about Japan and its cultural quirks: It's a story about the global economy. Japan is the world's third-largest economy, a crucial link in global trade and a significant factor everyone else's economic well-being. It owns almost as much U.S. debt as does China. It's a top trading partner of the U.S., China and lots of other countries. The Japanese economy is in serious enough trouble that it could set the rest of us back. And the biggest source of that trouble is demographic: Japanese people aren't having enough kids to sustain a healthy economy. One big reason they're having fewer kids is that they're not as interested in dating or marrying one another, in part because they're less interested in sex.

    The Japanese are suffering from a sex recession. They don't seem to appreciate that bukkake is not how humans reproduce.

  • Paul.||

    As an aside, you wanna freak out your garden-variety MSM reporter? Start suggesting that Country X has birthrates too low to continue the pyramid scheme of social safety nets.

    Overpopulation is just a zombie-apocalypse fun story. The one that really scares them is underpopulation.

  • Sevo||

    "The one that really scares them is underpopulation."

    Could be, but that charlatan Ehrlich is still peddling his 'overpop-doomsday' crap.

  • Paul.||

    The MSM doesn't pay attention to him anymore. Unless they want to do a fun story.

  • seguin||

    Hmm...it seems to me that some betesticle'd manly Hitandrunners need to go to Japan and show em how it's done.

    No fat chicks!

    /nolibertarianwomen

  • Paul.||

    If we keep going the way we're going, we'll be putting out similar levels of CO2 that Greece puts out.

    Great job, Federal Government!

  • Agammamon||

    http://www.popehat.com/2013/10.....t-thought/

    So, who do we need to sacrifice to the squirrels to get this implemented here?

  • Paul.||

    This is libertopia. If you don't like the rules, move to DailyKos. If you want to pay for the changes, start forking over the bitcoinz.

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    You can always start your own blog and implement it there.

  • ||

    Or we can overthrow the Reason staff and install a dictatorship of the commentariat.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Fuck you, give us an edit button.

  • ||

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    he needs a comb.

  • Killazontherun||

    For Dublin, that's practically a g-cut.

  • Ethan Miller-Wright||

    WTF

  • ||

    That is hilarious, I am saving that one to show my wife tomorrow.

    It does occur to me to ask.....how would a person know how to find something like....that?

  • Redmanfms||

    It does occur to me to ask.....how would a person know how to find something like....that?

    Looking for porn parodies.

  • ||

    "It is an enduring puzzle why environmental activists oppose the only energy production technologies (gas and nuclear) that actually make a big dent in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production."

    No, it isnt.

  • ||

    Ok. I posted before I read the thread. I suspected at least one other person might say the same thing, but everyone? HaHa.

    Reading the thread over my vodka, one thing jumped out at me. Shreek, a habitual liar, claimed that the Investor's Business Daily are liars and then posted a link from the NEW YORK TIMES to counter what IBD said.

    I wont sugar coat it, squirting vodka out of your nose may cause a little tearing in your eyes.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If I remember the Kyoto Protocol, weren't we supposed to commit to getting back to 1990 levels by 2020?

    Looks like we're way ahead of schedule.

    It will be interesting to note, too, I suspect this trend, if it continues, may doom California's cap and trade program:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB-32#Cap-and-Trade

    If emissions keep dropping faster than the caps, why would companies buy indulgences allowances? Not much of an exchange if few people have any incentive to buy anything on the exchange.

    It may sort of end up like the ObamaCare exchanges, except where the ObamaCare exchanges have something to sell but no way to buy anything, California's Cap-and-Trade system may have an easy way to buy things but nothing to sell.

  • seguin||

    Obviously, what we need to do is create a subsidy program for carbon emissions. Perhapswe can convince Amazon to power their server farm with a series of Ford 8BA flatheads?

  • JidaKida||

    Dude seems to know what he is talking about for sure.

    www.AnonWonders.tk

  • the other other alan||

    I believe the main opposition here is due to methane, which is order-of-magnitude more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. In other words, leaking out even a small amount of methane during fracking (which is quite common) quickly negates the environmental benefits of lower carbon dioxide emissions produced from natural gas use.

  • Writeangle||

    This is simple economics. Fracking gas in the US is cheap and cheaper than many other fossil fuels. It is also low carbon. People have moved from coal and other fossil fuels to fracking gas on price and incidentally reduced the US carbon load being produced

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement