Mark Ruffalo to Rehash Long Discredited Fracking Claims in “Dear President Obama”


,

Anti-fracking activist and Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo has been busy this week promoting a new film he is narrating called “Dear President Obama,” which calls on the president to “take action in the remaining months of his presidency to end hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.”

The premiere of the film, which takes place in Washington, D.C. tonight, hasn’t gotten much traction in the press, but that’s not surprising considering that – like the Gasland films before it – “Dear President Obama” simply rehashes claims that the nation’s top scientists (and indeed the world’s top scientists) have thoroughly debunked.

President Obama’s climate legacy: dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to natural gas

In an Op-Ed in the Huffington Post, Ruffalo and film director Jon Bowermaster claim,

“At issue: President Obama’s environmental tenure and legacy, which has included both substantial steps forward and backward. He enacted the automobile fuel efficiency standard, has invested in renewable energy like solar and wind, has taken a strong stance against climate deniers and saw through the Paris climate agreement. At the same time, he oversaw a massive expansion of oil and natural gas drilling, much of it by more and more dangerous and extreme methods, chiefly fracking.”

But what have the actual scientists had to say about President Obama’s “massive expansion of oil and gas drilling?”

According to the world’s most prominent climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

“A key development since AR4 is the rapid deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal-drilling technologies, which has increased and diversified the gas supply and allowed for a more extensive switching of power and heat production from coal to gas (IEA, 2012b); this is an important reason for a reduction of GHG emissions in the United States.” (emphasis added)

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), since 2005, natural gas has prevented more than one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted from power plants in the United States.  Meanwhile, by comparison, the use of renewable energy has prevented only 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.  EIA also noted as natural gas fired electricity generation ramped up, power plant greenhouse gas emissions reached a 27-year low in April 2015.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency’s (IEA) has just released data finding,

“In the United States, emissions declined by 2% (in 2015), as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place.”

IEA previously hailed the “decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States” as “one of the bright spots in the global picture” and went on to note, “One of the key reasons has been the increased availability of natural gas, linked to the shale gas revolution.”

The Breakthrough Institute (BTI) – an environmental group founded by individuals whom Time Magazine recognized as “heroes of the environment” – released a report in 2013 that demonstrated that natural gas has prevented 17 times more carbon dioxide emissions than wind, solar, and geothermal combined.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator McCarthy has long recognized the environmental benefits of our increased use of natural gas, explaining, “Natural gas has been a game changer with our ability to really move forward with pollution reductions that have been very hard to get our arms around for many decades.”

If anything, President Obama’s climate legacy is actually one of dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, thanks to the increased use of natural gas in electricity generation – and Ruffalo and his cohorts, who claim that climate change “is really mankind’s greatest threat,” want to end the production of the one fuel that has delivered significant climate benefits for the United States.

Western Democratic governors tout fracking for environmental and economic benefits

It’s clear from the press release that the film will attack two prominent Democratic western governors: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and California Governor Jerry Brown. These are two governors who both have strong climate records, and have long touted the environmental and economic benefits of fracking in their states.

Governor Hickenlooper recently said, “I can’t find an example in the West […] where the actual process of fracking has put frack fluid in the groundwater.”  By the way, a recent poll found that Coloradoans overwhelmingly support shale development.

Governor Brown recently explained on Meet the Press, “If we reduce our oil drilling on California, which a ban on fracking would do, we’ll import more oil by train or by boat, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Elsewhere, Brown has put it more bluntly, saying anti-fracking activists “don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”

Rehashing debunked claims

“Dear President Obama” will likely rehash the flaming faucets of Gasland, even though those were proven to be a fraud. Meanwhile, the EPA has completed its comprehensive, five year study of fracking and groundwater, which found “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.”

It will likely claim that fracking causes earthquakes, even though scientists who have studied induced earthquakes for years have said on multiple occasions that fracking is not the culprit. As Stanford geophysicists Mark Zoback, stated recently,

“What’s happening in Oklahoma is unrelated to hydraulic fracturing. It’s unrelated to hydraulic fracturing flowback water. It’s caused by massive injection of produced water.”

Injection wells, which are a completely separate process from fracking, also pose a very small risk of seismic activity.  A report by Energy In Depth – which uses data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and peer reviewed studies – finds that fewer than one percent of wastewater injection wells across the United States have been potentially linked to induced seismicity.

The film will likely claim that methane emissions during shale development cancel out the benefits of natural gas, even though study after study has found that emissions are low – far below what is required for natural gas to have clear environmental benefits. That’s why the IPCC has said, even “[t]aking into account revised estimates for fugitive emissions, recent lifecycle assessment indicate that specific GHG emission are reduced by one half” as more power plants are powered by natural gas.

It will likely claim that air emissions during fracking harm public health even though state regulatory agencies in ColoradoTexasPennsylvania, and West Virginia have looked at emissions from well pads and concluded that they are below public health thresholds, and that available technologies are being used to minimize emissions. Further, data from the EPA and several other studies show that since the shale revolution began, a number of key criteria pollutants have dramatically declined, having a profoundly positive effect on public health for families across the country. From 2005 to 2013 emissions of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) have decreased by 60 percent; emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) decreased by 68 percent; and emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) decreased by 52 percent. As regulators and scientific experts have noted, this progress is largely due to the skyrocketing production and use of natural gas.

Climate leaders frack

When Democrats and clear climate leaders – from President Obama to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to Governor Jerry Brown – debunk anti-fracking activists, showing that they are denying the science, it only demonstrates how marginalized they truly are.

Views: 386

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mark Ruffalo has feelings of grandeur.  He is smarter, and well frankly an uneducated actor who is looking to devalue scientific fact.  Sad in a way to want to gain attention at the cost of landowners, and consumers who would greatly benefit from natural gas fracking.  He got his, now he doesn't care about the poor and needy who would benefit from fracking natural gas.  VERY VERY SAD!!!

alexandra,

Here is a link to an article about Ruffalo and his pal DiCaprio.

It highlights how far in left field these two are when it comes to oil and gas development.

http://energyindepth.org/california/ruffalo-and-dicaprio-host-anti-...

Barry,  Thanks!!  Excellent article.  I wonder if those two morons read it.  It must be wonderful to be rich and entitled, to have it all while being able to screw the poor.  They are affecting incomes of deserving people while selfishly getting attention for themselves.  Just disgusting to watch these two slugs.  What else can you call two useless humans.  Ruffalo and DiCaprio you are not scientists, and you prove it with every anti-fracking statement you make.

alexandr

alexandra,

Ditto!

These acotrs and celebrities are all narcissists. Everything is about them and what will make them look good.

Until recently Ruffalo was at best a "C" actor, appearing in "C & D" films.

Then he found that he could get some notoriety by becoming an anti shale development activist.Now he hangs with Sean and Yoko, Susan Sarandon and the bigest environmental hypocrite of all - DiCaprio.

Theses people don't care about the truth, they care if they get positive Press.

They also don't care about the average person who is hurt by their anti shale activities. Why should they? They have theirs right? Screw everyone else.

Just how I see it.

Try to point out the fact that DiCaprio and the other washed ups from stupidwood are some of the biggest offenders to the climate. Private jets, estates, massive yachts all the traveling to demonstrate the use of fossil fuels. They are given a pass, but the landowners and the oil, natural gas and coal companies are crucified... Better to import natural gas in ships owned by George Soros (lots of research on that one will scare you) and oil from countries/people who only want to see Americans dead....By the way Leo DiCaprio is begging for a spot at the UNITED NATIONS climate control..if that happens we can forget leases and drilling.

Teresa,

You make an excellent point; many of those funding the anti shale development effort make their money from imported energy. The continued development of shale and the energy independence it would provide cuts into the bottom line of people such as George Soros and Warren Buffet.

People may not be aware that Warren Buffet was a major contributor to the Obama campaign. His business interests would have been harmed if the Keystone (XL) pipeline were built. His railroad company presently transports much of the oil intended for the pipeline, from Canada into the U.S.

"Dear President Obama".  

Don't worry he doesn't read his mail. The "Pres" is off saving "Cuber" as Kennedy use to call it, so he will leave Obama Care (for a while), and Cuber as his legacy, along with spending the US into debt to a point that we will never recover from.

I know because I wrote Obama the most important letter of the Century, asking him to stop the theft in the Appalachian Counties of the US that our Federal Government has dumped money into for the last 55 years to try and boost our economy.

Think of the future savings if the Pres were to clean up the theft in progress, and the bright future we would all have. But like Taxes and this give away, what would happen to the IRS if taxes were simplified, all of the IRS employees would be out of a job. As far as Appalachia goes, all of those living off the "Administration & Oversight" of Appalachia who are specially appointed by governors, would be on the streets if Appalachia didn't need economic help during the next 50 years. 

We need someone who doesn't have an Agenda to set this Country on the right course.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service