September, 16 2013, 03:58pm EDT

New Industry-Sponsored Study on Fracking More Spin Than Science, Produces Findings Dramatically Out of Step With Other Recent Studies
Coalition Blasts Environmental Defense Fund For Conflicted Methane Study
WASHINGTON
In response to a new study on methane leakage from fracking wells, Americans Against Fracking released the following statement:
"This industry-sponsored 'study' is more spin than science," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. "The Environmental Defense Fund is running interference for the industry, and the result will be more drilling and fracking around the world. The only responsible path forward is deploying renewables and increasing energy efficiency--not building another 30 years of infrastructure for the oil and gas industry."
Background
EDF Study Conflicts
The study, led by researchers from the University of Texas and URS Corporation, Inc., is the first of five Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) studies aimed at estimating specific sources of methane emissions throughout the U.S. natural gas system. According to the authors of the study, "[t]he sponsors were Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, BG Group plc, Chevron, Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Company, SWEPI LP (Shell), Southwestern Energy, Talisman Energy USA and XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary." The authors reported "no conflicts of interest" but each of the sponsors clearly has a vested interest in improving the image of drilling and fracking for shale gas with respect to the impact it is having on our climate. The University of Texas is a major recipient of oil and gas industry money, and by its own admission, URS Corporation is "a leading provider of design, construction and production services across the upstream, midstream and downstream supply chain, and we have established long-term relationships with some of the world's largest oil and gas companies."
The study's sponsors provided "financial support, technical advice, and access to sites for sampling." With this special and presumably tightly controlled access, the authors directly measured methane emissions at different well sites at different stages of development. It is very unlikely that companies allowed the methane monitoring teams to arrive without thoroughly checking the well site for any potential safety hazards, such as open sources of the flammable gas methane.
Comparison to Independent Studies
Recent, independent estimates of methane leakage by researchers at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, using aircraft monitoring, suggest that the rates of methane leakage in at least two active natural gas fields are much higher than the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory's current estimate.
EDF Study Findings
The researchers, David T. Allen et al., directly measured methane emissions from 150 well sites with a total 489 completed wells that were producing gas, from nine wells from which liquids were being pumped out to improve gas production ("liquids unloading"), and from four wells that had been producing, but that needed "reworking" (without additional fracking), to improve production. But as the researchers note, only the sample of 150 well sites, with a total of 489 producing wells, is potentially large enough to justify making conclusions about the nationwide rate of leakage during the production stage. During this stage, the authors found that methane leakage was significantly higher than that estimated by EPA during this stage. Leaks from pneumatic controllers, for example, were found to be more than twice that estimated by EPA (790 Gigagrams of methane per year, compared to EPA's estimate of 355 Gigagrams per year).
In addition, by looking at methane emissions before the production stage, Allen et al. measured methane emissions from 27 wells during the "completion flowback" process, which clears the well of debris (mostly sand, or "proppant") after drilling and fracking and before gas is produced for sale. They found much lower emissions than estimated by EPA in its most recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory, but 27 wells make for a very small sample, much too small to draw meaningful conclusions about national emissions. According to Fred Krupp, EDF's own president, "Sixty-seven percent of the emissions come from just ten percent of the wells." It follows that hundreds if not thousands of completion flowbacks would need to be monitored to significantly reduce uncertainty in estimated emissions just from that particular process. Indeed, as Allen et al. state, "The uncertainty estimate [overall, about 20%] does not include ... the issue of whether the companies that provided sampling sites are representative of the national population." Thus, the bias introduced by oil and gas companies expecting and preparing for EDF's monitoring is not accounted for in the study.
Why Methane Matters
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, at least 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe, and at least 72 times as harmful as carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. While burning natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than does burning coal or oil, methane emissions at every point in the natural gas supply chain are ruining the image of natural gas as a lower-carbon "bridge fuel" for addressing climate change.
More fracking means more climate change
Even assuming regulations could be established and enforced to minimize methane leakage to levels measured in this study, despite fierce opposition from industry, there is no getting around the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Burning natural gas still produces significant amounts of carbon dioxide. The IEA's "Golden Age of Gas" scenario, which assumed a massive increase in global dependence on natural gas, would still lead to catastrophic levels of global CO2 emissions, putting us on pace for over six degrees Fahrenheit of additional warming. That's assuming, unrealistically, that global coal emissions peak by 2020 and that lower natural gas prices around the globe don't hold back renewables and energy efficiency measures.
Americans Against Fracking is composed of the following groups: www.americansagainstfracking.org/members. For more information about Americans Against Fracking, visit www.AmericansAgainstFracking.org.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Trump Campaign Already Claiming Democrats Trying to 'Steal the 2024 Election'
Republican Party politicians are so far "silent" about the lie, said MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes, "even though every last one knows how dangerous all this is."
Oct 03, 2023
With more than a year to go until the 2024 presidential election, top advisers to former U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign on Monday night claimed without evidence that the Democratic Party is trying to "steal" the election, echoing the lies spread before the 2020 election that fueled the violent January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump campaign officials called on the Republican National Committee (RNC) to "immediately cancel" the third GOP debate, which is scheduled to take place in Miami on November 8 and which Trump has indicated he will not attend, just as he skipped the first two primary debates.
Senior advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita called on the RNC to essentially terminate the primary election and "end all future debates in order to refocus its manpower and money on preventing Democrats' efforts to steal the 2024 election."
Long before voters went to the polls in the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly claimed that the Democratic Party was trying to "steal" or "rig" the vote by expanding mail-in voting—which the former Republican president himself had long utilized and which was expanded to help people vote safely amid the coronavirus pandemic—and made false claims about "fake polls" and absentee ballots.
Few in the Republican Party spoke out against Trump's pre-election lies in 2020, and MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes said Monday that the party is again signaling that it will "stay silent" about the former president's baseless accusations—"even though every last one knows how dangerous all this is."
Wiles and LaCivita claimed the RNC's continuation of primary debates amounted to "an admission to the grassroots that their concerns about voter integrity are not taken seriously" and that Republicans will not work to ensure "a safe and secure election."
Liberal commentator Ryan Shead said the latest ramp-up of election disinformation from Trump is a consequence of the former president's acquittal by Republicans in the U.S. Congress when he was impeached for inciting the January 6 insurrection.
As Vanity Fair correspondent Molly Jong-Fast wrote in May, Trump's lies about "stolen" elections are a central part of his 2024 strategy.
"Trump's supporters, by ignoring the 'fake news' and simply taking his word—or that of his propagandists—are left in post-truth reality," wrote Jong-Fast. "Even Trump seems to acknowledge how essential the subject of 2020 'fraud' is in the 2024 primary, tellingThe Messenger this week how if he didn't talk about it, 'I would actually be rebuked by a large portion of the Republican Party.'"
Trump is currently polling far ahead of his opponents in the Republican primary race, beating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis by 48 points in the latest Morning Consult poll. The national survey showed Trump is currently tied with Biden.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Group Behind Supreme Court CFPB Case Is Full of 'Criminals, Crooks, and Predatory Lenders'
Accountable.US warned that if the Supreme Court sides with the lending group, "it would open the door to the worst rollback of consumer protection in U.S. history and mass uncertainty for the markets and other agencies."
Oct 03, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case brought by a payday lending industry trade group that represents companies with long histories of engaging in criminal activity and drawing hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from regulators—including the federal consumer protection agency they are now attempting to destroy.
An analysis released by the watchdog group Accountable.US ahead of Tuesday's proceedings cites a number of instances in which Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) board member companies were found to have taken part in "corruption and ethics scandals, including racketeering convictions, Ponzi scheme payouts, and payments to disgraced politicians."
The CFSA is before the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding structure. The bureau's funding comes from the Federal Reserve system, not annual congressional appropriations.
If the Supreme Court sides with the CFSA, the consumer bureau—which is tasked with combating corporate abuses—could be forced to rely on Congress for its annual budget, opening it up to politically motivated cuts pushed by industry-backed Republicans who have sought to abolish the CFPB.
The Supreme Court could also issue a more sweeping ruling that completely invalidates the actions the agency has taken on behalf of consumers over the past dozen years, a decision that would have far-reaching implications for federal agencies, critical programs, and the U.S. economy.
Listen to the oral arguments:
The Accountable.US analysis makes clear that the beneficiaries of any weakening of the CFPB would be companies that have unlawfully preyed on consumers.
Enova International, a financial services firm whose chief strategy officer serves on the board of the CFSA, was fined $3.2 million by the CFPB in 2019 "for debiting consumer bank accounts without their authorization," Accountable.US noted.
A year later, Progressive Leasing—a subsidiary of PROG Holdings—"paid $175 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging the lender 'frequently' misled consumers by charging consumers twice the advertised ticket price for payments on rent-to-own items," the watchdog added.
The group estimated that CFSA companies have paid more than $200 million in fines levied by U.S. regulators.
Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power program at Accountable.US, said Tuesday that "if ever there was a time to consider the source, it's this lawsuit."
"A gang of predatory payday lenders that include convicted racketeers and accused tax cheats, embezzlers, and scam artists want the Supreme Court to tie up the CFPB in knots of political obstruction and hamper the agency's work protecting consumers," said Zelnick. "These loan sharks notorious for charging as much as 1,200% interest rates are not the honest brokers and constitutional champions the financial industry and their lackeys in Congress make them out to be."
"If the Supreme Court sides with the criminals, crooks, and predatory lenders behind this case," Zelnick warned, "it would open the door to the worst rollback of consumer protection in U.S. history and mass uncertainty for the markets and other agencies."
Accountable.US and other watchdogs have called on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse from the case, citing their ties to the Koch network and other corporate groups and wealthy individuals that support—or stand to benefit from—the challenge to the CFPB. Both justices have refused to do so.
"It's far past time for these justices to stop putting their billionaire pals over everyday Americans," Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone said Monday. "Recusing themselves from cases where they have glaring conflicts of interest is the very least they can do to restore some semblance of credibility and integrity to our Supreme Court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They Still Failed Millions of Children': Congress Averted a Shutdown, But Not a Childcare Cliff
"Families all over this country are struggling as a direct result of the inaction from Congress."
Oct 03, 2023
Congress temporarily averted a government shutdown with just hours to spare over the weekend after House Republicans finally agreed to pass a stopgap bill without the draconian spending cuts they had previously demanded.
But despite Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) invitation to the American public to " breathe a sigh of relief" following the measure's passage, one sector in particular had little reason to do so.
On Saturday, billions of dollars in emergency childcare funding approved during the coronavirus pandemic expired due to government inaction, a nightmare scenario that providers, lawmakers, and analysts had been warning about for months.
In mid-September, members of Congress introduced the Child Care Stabilization Act in a last-ditch effort to prevent catastrophe, but Republicans have not supported the bill.
As a result, according to a recent analysis by The Century Foundation, more than 3 million kids could soon lose their childcare spots, more than 70,000 childcare programs across the country could be forced to close their doors, and 232,000 childcare workers—who are chronically underpaid—will likely lose their jobs.
"While there is some temporary relief that the government avoided a shutdown last week, they still failed millions of children and families by not acting on the childcare cliff and failing to pass the Child Care Stabilization Act," Nicole Jorwic, chief of advocacy and campaigns at Caring Across Generations, said in a statement late Monday.
"The continuing gamesmanship in Congress is putting livelihoods at risk, and in a little more than a month from now, Congress will fail millions more if they continue down this path of threatening families' well-being and holding the economy hostage for political gain," said Jorwic. "Families all over this country are struggling as a direct result of the inaction from Congress. Our economy will not be able to fully recover and thrive if people who are already squeezed by the lack of investments in family-first policies have even more taken away. It is critical Congress stop manufacturing crises and instead, take care of their constituents."
"The loss of childcare resources will be devastating for families. For most, it can be their single largest cost."
The Covid-19 crisis hammered the childcare sector, which has been slower than other areas of the economy to recover after seeing significant job losses and other pandemic-related disruptions.
Tens of billions of dollars in childcare grants approved in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan provided some relief, helping to keep hundreds of thousands of childcare providers running and preventing millions of children from losing their spots.
Now that the funding has expired, many childcare centers are expected to raise tuition to compensate, potentially pushing low-income families out. Childcare costs vary across the U.S., but "prices are untenable for families even in lower-priced areas," warned a recent Labor Department analysis.
"Using the most recent data available from 2018 and adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars, childcare prices range from $4,810 ($5,357 in 2022 dollars) for school-age home-based care in small counties to $15,417 ($17,171 in 2022 dollars) for infant center-based care in very large counties," the Labor Department found. "These prices represent between 8% and 19.3% of median family income per child."
The Century Foundation estimated that the impacts of the emergency funding lapse could cost U.S. families $9 billion a year in lost earnings, as many could have to leave the workforce or curb their hours to care for their children.
"Parents simply cannot afford to pay the true cost of providing care, and providers can't afford to earn any less," Daniel Hains, a managing director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children, toldThe New York Times.
The end of the childcare grants will compound the damage done by the collapse of the pandemic-era safety net, which lifted
tens of millions out of poverty in 2021. The reversal has been sharp: Last year, U.S. child poverty more than doubled, largely due to the expiration of the boosted child tax credit that congressional Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) opposed.
In an op-ed for Fortune last week, All Our Kin CEO Jessica Sager warned that "the loss of childcare resources will be devastating for families. For most, it can be their single largest cost. And without it, they cannot participate fully in the workforce."
"In Arkansas, Montana, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C., the impact could be particularly drastic, with some estimates saying at least half of the licensed childcare programs could close," Sager wrote. "Another 14 states could see their options for licensed childcare programs reduced by a third."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!