Global Warming News and Articles

An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It's cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.

It's natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It's now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation's homes, it's becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.

Natural gas' abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions - and their costs. Yet politicians aren't stumping for it.

In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources - solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.

Utilities in the U.S. aren't waiting for Washington to jump on the gas bandwagon. Looming climate legislation has altered the calculus that they use to determine the cheapest way to deliver power. Coal may still be cheaper, but natural gas emits half as much carbon when burned to generate the same amount electricity.

Today, about 27 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.

But the fuel has to be plentiful and its price stable - and that has not always been the case with natural gas. In the 1990s, factories that wanted to burn gas instead of coal had to install equipment that did both because the gas supply was uncertain and wild price swings were common. In some states, because of feared shortages, homebuilders were told new gas hookups were banned.

It's a different story today. Energy experts believe that the huge volume of supply now will ease price swings and supply worries.

Gas now trades on futures markets for about $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet. While that's up from a recent low of $2.41 in September as the recession reduced demand and storage caverns filled to overflowing, it's less than half what it was in the summer of 2008 when oil prices surged close to $150 a barrel.

Oil and gas prices trends have since diverged, due to the recession and the growing realization of just how much gas has been discovered in the last three years. That's thanks to the introduction of horizontal drilling technology that has unlocked stunning amounts of gas in what were before off-limits shale formations. Estimates of total gas reserves have jumped 58 percent from 2004 to 2008, giving the U.S. a 90-year supply at the current usage rate of about 23 trillion cubic feet of year.

The only question is whether enough gas can be delivered at affordable enough prices for these trends to accelerate.

The world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., gave its answer last Monday when it announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc. The move will make it the country's No. 1 producer of natural gas.

Exxon expects to be able to dramatically boost natural gas sales to electric utilities. In fact, CEO Rex Tillerson says that's why the deal is such a smart investment.

Tillerson says he sees demand for natural gas growing 50 percent by 2030, much of it for electricity generation and running factories. Decisions being made by executives at power companies lend credence to that forecast.

Consider Progress Energy Inc., which scrapped a $2 billion plan this month to add scrubbers needed to reduce sulfur emmissions at 4 older coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. Instead, it will phase out those plants and redirect a portion of those funds toward cleaner burning gas-fired plants.

Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progess Energy Carolina, says planners were 99 percent certain that retrofitting plants made sense when they began a review late last year. But then gas prices began falling and the recession prompted gas-turbine makers to slash prices just as global warming pressures intesified.

"Everyone saw it pretty quickly," he says. Out went coal, in comes gas. "The environmental component of coal is where we see instability."

Nevada power company NV Energy Inc. canceled plans for a $5 billion coal-fired plant early this year. That came after its homestate senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, made it clear he would fight to block its approval, and executives' fears mounted about the costs of meeting future environmental rules.

"It was obvious to us that Congress or the EPA or both were going to act to reduce carbon emissions," said CEO Michael Yackira, whose utilty already gets two-thirds of its electricity from gas-fired units. "Without understanding the economic ramifications, it would have been foolish for us to go forward."

Even with an expected jump in demand from utilities, gas prices won't rise much beyond $6.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for years to come, says Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. That tracks an Energy Department estimate made last week.

Such forecasts are based in part on a belief that the recent spurt in gas discoveries may only be the start of a golden age for gas drillers - one that creates wealth that rivals the so-called Gusher Age of the early 20th century, when strikes in Texas created a new class of oil barons.

XTO, the company that Exxon is buying, was one of the pioneers in developing new drilling technologies that allow a single well to descend 9,000 feet and then bore horizontally through shale formations up to 1 1/2 miles away. Water, sand and chemical additives are pumped through these pipes to unlock trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that until recently had been judged unobtainable.

The wells still only capture only about a quarter of the gas locked in the shale formations. Future improvements could double that recovery rate.

However, expanded drilling has already raised environmental concerns about both the type of chemicals and millions of gallons of water used in the process.

Several lawmakers are trying to close a loophole created when Congress exempted the chemicals used in horizontal drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act four years ago. Two months ago Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the nation's largest natural gas producers, said it would not operate in the New York City watershed after opposition from environmental groups and lawmakers seeking to protect the water supply.

Even with the big increases in reserves they were logging, expansion plans by XTO and its rivals have been limited by the debt they took on to finance these projects that can cost as much as $3 million apiece. Under Exxon, which earned $45.2 billion last year, that barrier has been obliterated.

Bottom line: this new source of gas supply in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York and other states holds out the promise of as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of supplies. It is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83 percent more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.

"The question now is how does this change the energy discussion in the U.S. and by how much?" says Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and chairman of IHS CERA, an energy consultancy. "This is domestic energy ... it's low carbon, it's low cost and it's abundant. When you add it up, it's revolutionary."

By MARK WILLIAMS, AP Energy Writer

Since it opened last week, James Cameron's much-anticipated film "Avatar" has won praise from movie critics and been a juggernaut at the box office. But some who have seen the film say that it contains hidden messages that are anti-war, pro-environment, and perhaps even racist.

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the film, a little nonspoiler background might be useful. The story is set in the year 2154 when Earth's inhabitants, having used up most of their natural resources through decades of living in excess, plan to use military force to conquer Pandora, a moon roughly the same size as Earth. Pandora, inhabited by a wise, peaceful, and nature-respecting people with blue skin called the Na'vi, is rich in a resource that the people of Earth desperately need.

The earthlings send in a crew of special-forces mercenaries armed with guns, bombs, and other sophisticated weaponry to attack and conquer the Na'vi (who some think resemble American Indians and Africans), despite the fact that they represent no direct threat to the inhabitants of Earth.

Since humans can't breathe in Pandora's atmosphere, the military employs mind-controlled avatars that resemble the Na'vi in every way to venture out from their landing craft and explore the landscape. Sympathizing with the Na'vi after becoming acquainted with them and their customs, one of the human-controlled avatars becomes a turncoat and helps lead the people of Pandora in the defense of their homeland.

Are you beginning to get a sense of why some viewers noticed what they believe are underlying messages in the film?

Some prominent members of the media who screened the film certainly took note. In a glowing review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert noted that "Avatar" "has a flat-out Green and anti-war message" that is "predestined to launch a cult." Meanwhile Ben Hoyle, writing in the Times of London, noted that the film "contains heavy implicit criticism of America's conduct in the War on Terror." Further, Will Heaven of the Daily Telegraph said that the plot line involving people of color who wear "tribal" jewelry while sporting dreadlocked hair, being saved by a noble white man gave the film a "racist subtext" that he found "nauseatingly patronising."

But are these hidden messages really all that hidden? James Cameron himself hasn't been shy in publicly proclaiming the fact that he's an environmental activist who believes that humans and "industrial society" are "causing a global climate change" and "destroying species faster than we can classify them." In a recent interview with PBS' Tavis Smiley, Cameron admitted that he made "obvious" references in the film to Iraq, Vietnam and the American colonial period to emphasize the fact that humans have a "terrible history" of "entitlement" in which we "take what we need" from nature and indigenous peoples "and don't give back."

Further, one of the film's stars Stephen Lang told CNN that he is "not surprised at all" that some people have taken note of the film's political messages, mainly because the central theme of humans "destroying" a "pristine world" out of "blindness and greed" is so "overt."

Despite the obvious political undertones in "Avatar," at least one right-leaning critic doesn't think people who disagree with the film's ideology should totally dismiss it. In his review on the website Hot Air, Ed Morrissey writes, "Conservatives have more or less primed themselves to hate this film because of the presumed anti-war politics of the movie. It's there -- in fact, it's unmistakable -- but it's not as bad as one might presume." He goes on to note that "Avatar" is "entertaining" though "hardly a deep intellectual exercise."

by Brett Michael Dykes

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's advertising watchdog has banned two government adverts for overstating the threat from climate change, it said.

The adverts used nursery rhymes including "Jack and Jill" to highlight the impact of global warming, but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said they exaggerated the risk.

"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought," read the copyline on one of the ads.

"Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense," warned the advert, commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The second advert read: "Rub-a-dub-dub, three men in a tub -- a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change."

"Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense," it said.

And it warned: "If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different."

The adverts were part of a DECC campaign last year which attracted 939 complaints.

Upholding the complaints, the ASA said that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband downplayed the problem raised by the ASA.

"The science tells us that it is more than 90 percent likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don't act. In any future campaign, as requested by the ASA, we will make clear the nature of this prediction.

"We will continue to provide public information about the dangers of climate change," he added.