Trump pollution

Why did BHO put restrictions on natural gas fracking then?

Tell that to China who is still building coal-fired plants at a rate of over 100 per year.

I would but I don't have a say in China

I'll tell it to anyone. More than 1,500 coal fired plants are on the planning table around the world. There is enough natural gas to make them gas fired instead. We have a movement made up of people who call themselves "environmentalists," trying to block gas development and delivery. If it was a simple choice of gas or solar, with each having similar capacity and cost, I would enthusiastically endorse solar. But, it isn't close. We need to export gas to china and india. That means we have to drill it and ship it, for the sake of the planet.

So what are you Amish do you not use any electricity, do you not own a vehicle. If you are Amish then I respect this comment if not shut up, because you use what you are slamming.

I don't need the respect of someone who thinks that "scrubbers," remove CO2 from the atmosphere in any measurable amount. Actually, all of my electricity comes from the Bonneville Dam.

This is a market driven solution. The changeover from coal to natural gas is a small fraction of the cost of building a different type (green or not) generator. Natural Gas costs less per BTU than coal. And, it is a fossil fuel. But, it is a less harmful one. If we made the changeover of all coal power plants world wide, the CO2 reductions would be remarkable. And, as a spokesperson for a company that operates renewable and fossil fuel plants said, "The number of megawatts is simply not replaceable in the short term with renewables." Reality demands that all of us get pragmatic and dump political and other biases.

I am not anti-nuclear. But, the politics of that sort of rule it out as an option. China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, are building new reactors. The Lockheed Martin Corporation says it is on the verge of a breakthrough in fusion. But, I have heard that from multiple sources for decades. I guess I forgot to mention that Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal. As for getting others to buy it, the price should drive that. It is cheaper than coal and likely to remain so, because of the plentiful supply.

Have you ever heard of scrubbers?

Natural gas may not be as bad as coal, but it’s still really bad. We need renewable energy.

Our goal should be renewables, preferrably solar and wind. But current battery costs make them not feasible to some sort of fossil source. When batteries are able to store renewables for dark days and nights and windless days, we will still need fossil as a back up. The only reason Natural Gas has not totally replaced coal and drastically cut the CO2 being created is that so called environmentalists want to "win," some sort of imagined debate, like Trump and his wall. The block every Natural Gas project they can. Industrial growth in China and India have increased their production of CO2 by 3-million and 1-million metric tons, respectively in less than a decade. Over that same time we have decreased ours by over 7.58-million metric tons by switching to Natural Gas and other actions. We are on the right track.

I am sorry. I forgot to proof read this. In the second sentence the word "compared" should be insserted after the word feasible. And, in the second to last sentence, it should say that we have reduced our CO2 output bu 758-million metric tons, not 7.58.

Even if natural gas is a step forward, we need to switch to renewable sources soon. Otherwise, we will run out of natural gas. Also, fracking, used to obtain natural gas, is harmful.

All oil and gas taken out of the ground since the 1940s has used a fracturing method. The "Anti-Fracking,: scare is not based on real science. And we have enough Natural Gas to last over 100-years. A group at MIT that focuses on the science of green energy says it will take about two decades to develop the batteries needed to make it feasible. It could take longer. I hope it takes less time. But, don't count on changes before then.

"not based on real science," you say?
https://eblnews.com/video/science-again-proves-fracking-causes-earthquakes-503956
And NewScientist also claims that "if [leakage] rates are at 10 percent – the top end of current US estimates – the gas would deliver extra warming until the mid-22nd century."

Rather than quote some activist or industry site that has a bias, I choose the US Geological Survey, who are recognized by serious scientists as the experts. Here is a quote form their publication that addresses the question of induced earthquakes, "Fracking is NOT causing most of the induced earthquakes." These induced earthquakes, usually in therange of 1 or 2 on the Richter Scale (not enough to do any damage) come form liquifaction. This is caused when left over water from fracking is dosposed in the ground. If it is taken elsewhere, which is now done, no quakes are caused. Please. I have read all of the biased publications. If you are serious about solving the problem, look at the facts and choose the best paths currently available to us, no just what is popular with the cool kids.