- The ProPublica article "Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated"
- A rebuttal from Energyindepth
- A response from ProPublica "Clearing the Air on ProPublica’s Drilling Pollution Story"
From: Kolodziej, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:30 PM
Subject: ProPublica Response
In case you missed it, in an article posted on their website titled "Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated," a writer for ProPublica, an investigative journalism organization, concludes that the greenhouse gas impacts of natural gas production and use are far worse than estimates from any other previous studies. Despite being riddled with flaws, the study has gotten a lot of media attention – including a mention in a New York Times [blog entry] yesterday.
To aid you in responding to inquiries about that study, [there] are three documents. The first is the ProPublica article (which you can also find at www.propublica.org/article/clearing-the-air-on-propublicas-drilling-pollution-story. The second is a statement by EPA [below]. The ProPublica article relied heavily on EPA analyses. EPA basically said that they didn't do an analysis; ProPublica simply did their own analysis based on some preliminary data EPA had gathered. The third document is a rebuttal of the ProPublica article done by Energyindepth – an organization funded primarily by producer associations. It pokes lots of holes in ProPublica's article.
We are working on collecting input from these and other sources and preparing a dispassionate fact sheet. We hope to have that done shortly, and will send that to you. In the meantime, please used the information in the attached documents in responding to inquiries.
Rich
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Kolodziej, President
NGVAmerica
400 N. Capitol St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202/824-7366
Fax: 202/824-9160
Email: rkolodziej@NGVAmerica.org
Website: www.ngvamerica.org
EPA releases statement on ProPublica piece
EPA has not conducted an analysis of coal versus natural gas, and there is no new report. The information referred to in the [ProPublica] article was developed based on information from a Technical Support Document, however, which was developed as support for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The reporter used that data and did his own calculations to arrive at the figures used in the article.
The [Technical Support] document [referred to] above does not estimate emissions from the gas industry and the emissions estimates in the [ProPublica] article were not developed by EPA. EPA has not reviewed the analysis described in the article in detail, but we have not seen any indication that the benefits of natural gas have been called into question. Available data demonstrate that switching from another fossil fuel to natural gas reduces emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants that threaten Americans' health.
Erin Birgfeld
Director of Communications
Climate Change Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Finally, consider this opinion by Andrew Revkin:
The climate issue? Natural gas, when extracted and burned without leakage, produces about half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced compared to coal. But when the gas escapes to the atmosphere, it exerts a potent heat-trapping influence because the main constituent in natural gas is methane, which is the second most important human-generated greenhouse gas, not far behind carbon dioxide.
No comments:
Post a Comment