1 / 40

Low-Income Public Transportation Will Thrive If We Regulate Fracking

Low-Income Public Transportation Will Thrive If We Regulate Fracking. Christopher S. Chen. CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE:. LOSS OF ICE COVERAGE IN THE ARCTIC. In 2005, summer ice coverage in the Arctic was only THREE-QUARTERS the size of its long-term average size ( yellow line ).

salome
Télécharger la présentation

Low-Income Public Transportation Will Thrive If We Regulate Fracking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Low-Income Public Transportation Will Thrive If We Regulate Fracking Christopher S. Chen

  2. CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE:

  3. LOSS OF ICE COVERAGE IN THE ARCTIC In 2005, summer ice coverage in the Arctic was only THREE-QUARTERS the sizeof its long-term average size (yellow line). Nature - March 1, 2007

  4. GLACIERS HAVE SHRUNK WORLDWIDE http://www.globalwarmingart.com

  5. Rise in Global Temperature “[Over] 150 years of temperature records, the 17 warmest years have all occurred within the previous 20 years.” (Climatic Research Institute, Univ. East Anglia) Temperature anomaly (oC) is measured relative to the average global temperature from 1950-1980

  6. Measured Relative to 1901-2000 Average Global surface temperatures (1880–2006). The red bars indicate the average temperature for each year, and the ranges for each year are shown as the black error bars. The blue line shows the 5-year moving average.

  7. 2007 IPCC report – Summary for Policymakershttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

  8. ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS - CO2 Selected radiativeforcings of climate from 1750 to 2005. The units are in watts per square meter (W/m^2), the light energy hitting a square meter of the Earth's surface every second.

  9. ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AND FOSSIL FUELS The current level of atmospheric CO2 is much higher than any value recorded in ice cores over the past 600,000 years. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 150 years coincides with the growth in global use of fossil fuels. The rise in CO2 since 1850 has been very rapid when compared to historical climate data from ice cores.

  10. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ? Scientists can investigate this question using carbon isotopes –i.e., variants of atoms with different masses. The two stable isotopes of carbon are 12C and 13C. Living plants preferentially use the lighter12C isotope during photosynthesis. Therefore, plant organic matter shows a characteristic 13C/12C ratio that is depleted in 13C content. This isotope ratio is preserved in fossil fuels. • Recent atmospheric CO2 measurements show a 13C/12C isotope ratio that is characteristic of fossil fuels (reduced 13C). • Conclusion: The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels arises from burning fossil fuels. Is there direct evidence that the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere arise from the carbon atoms in fossil fuels?

  11. Correlation VS. Causation • -Many will argue that correlation does not imply causation, that CO2 rising coincidentally with global temperature does not mean rising CO2 levels are causing an increase in global temperature • BUT: • If we look at the next diagram:

  12. Temperature & CO2Over 400,000 Years

  13. Correlation VS. Causation • Relative Temperature (to today) was generally at the same scaled level of CO2 until the last 200 years… • Because this correlation seems to be pretty strong in the past, there may be a high probability that it will remain strong now (and thus the high CO2 may be correlated with high temperatures)

  14. Molecular Level: • -Molecular vibrations in CO2. • -Each spring represents a C=O double bond • -Vibrations a and b are stretching vibrations; c and d are bending vibrations. • Resulut: absorbs INFRARED RADIATION (UV would break bonds, microwaves rotate water molecules)

  15. Solution: • Reducing CO2 levels may prevent the global temperature from rising too quickly

  16. Four model projections for temperature scenarios in the 21st century based on different socioeconomic assumptions. The black line is the data for the 20th century with the gray regions indicating the uncertainty in those values. The four dark lines represent projected 21st-century temperatures, with the wider lighter colored bands representing the uncertainty range for each scenario.

  17. -The four scenarios for 21st-century temperatures are based on different assumptions. • -The orange line assumes that emissions levels are kept at 2000 levels, admittedly an unrealistic target given the increases that already have occurred since 2000. Even with this most optimistic scenario, some additional warming will take place due to the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere for years to come. • -Both the blue and greenlines assume that the global population will increase to 9 billion by 2050 but then gradually decrease. However, the blue line includes the more rapid development of energy-efficient technologies, leading to lower CO2 emissions. • -The red line assumes a continually increasing population combined with a slower and less globally integrated transition to new, cleaner technologies. • -ALL MODELS show an upward trend, nonetheless

  18. Consequences CO2 • Acidic water – reaction of CO2 and H2O makes • -dissolved free carbon dioxide (CO2(aq)), • -carbonic acid (H2CO3), • -bicarbonate [HCO3 ]1- • -carbonate [CO3]2- • Lowers pH of oceans, destroying bio life (biodiversity too). These costs are beyond economic projections; the fact that this the result of the tragedy of the global commonsmakes it more difficult to analyze and project • (damaged fisheries, sea coral, bacterial competition -> water quality)

  19. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) • -The SCC is meant to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages and includes, but is not limited to, changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from increased flood risk • -SCC is an estimate of the economic damages associated with a small increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year. This dollar figure also represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e. the benefit of a CO2 reduction).

  20. Economic Costs: SCC (CO2 ) • EPA

  21. Elementary Calculations • Let’s say least is around $10 / metric ton • Max around $235 / met. Ton • A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2per year • [Typical plant assumptions: Capacity=600 MW; Capacity Factor=69%; Heat Rate=10,415; CO2 Emissions Rate=206 pounds of CO2/Million Btu] • -US already planning for Carbon Tax (Obama) • NATURAL GAS vs COAL PLANT • -generates half of Coal-generated CO2 • -far fewer particulate matter, toxic metals etc. • So savings, (underestimate and at least): $17.5 million from Social costs of Carbon ($5 SCC cost as opposed to $10)

  22. POLICY SUGGESTION:CO2 IN NY

  23. Low-Income Public Transportation Will Thrive If We Regulate Fracking • New York should allow fracking if companies abide to state regulations, fines, and taxes. • Revenue from fines and taxes etc. will be used for the Low-Income Public Transportation sector. • It is also time to stop reaping huge benefits from Pennsylvania’s fracking companies while opposing fracking because of its unknown dangers if we have the power to regulate it. • Combine this with the carbon tax that should come soon, this is ECONOMICALLY beneficially in its environmental sense too

  24. The Gist: • New York citizens thrive off of Pennsylvania’s fracking industry. • Buildings that participate in the NYC government’s Clean Heat Program save 50% in energy costs when they use Pennsylvania’s natural gas instead of oil­­.1 • In addition, average gas prices dropped and is projected to drop 11 cents per gallon in 2014 – the lowest price in three years.2 • Still, one in two New York City voters seem to oppose fracking, most likely because fracking seems dangerous and unregulated.3 • While we reap economic benefits and breathe cleaner air because of less carbon emissions, people still condemn fracking. As of now, fracking in certain areas NY is outlawed

  25. To Do: • -(still being debated at NY’s highest judicial and legislative branches- Andrew Cuomo has stalled the decision) • -It is time to compromise. Fracking needs to be regulated; many companies are exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) from 2005, known as the Halliburton Loophole.4This makes it more likely for drinking water contamination • The incidents high methane levels near frackingsites means REGULATION IS NECESSARY. 5 • Tax those who are not willing to comply yet, and coupled with the carbon tax, this would encourage compliance

  26. What We’ll Get • The key is revenue from fracking regulation and fines to help the Public Transportation sector; for every $1 billion invested in this sector, there are 36,000 jobs created, and for every $1 invested is a $4 economic return.6(positive multiplier) • Households will save $10,000 a year and 4,400 miles of driving.7 • But low-income families, who account for the majority of users, do not always have access to public transportation due to underfunding.8 It needs funding.

  27. Solution: • Allocate revenue from regulating and taxing the New York fracking industries to low-income public transportation sectors; • Cince we let them “frack” (let them prosper), they should give back and help our public transportation systems • Simple: 66% people are in favor of regulating fracking companies anyway.9 • Doing so would kill three birds with one stone: • Frackingwill be regulated; • Public Transportation will get funding; • Economic and environmental benefits.

  28. Natural Resources Defense Council

  29. Why Do this: • Fracking creates jobs. Fracking also lowers America’s dependence on foreign oil.10 • When shown the benefits by the Department of Environmental Conservation, 45% NY voters statewide supported fracking, with 40% opposing.11 • If fracking is regulated, its supporters would evidently skyrocket, since most of their concerns are about how it can contaminate water supplies, use too many chemicals, and release too much methane.12 • Frackingserves as a temporary solution – a very rewarding solution – that would not only help Americans divert time and resources to develop renewable resources but also make America the largest exporter of oil by 2015, ahead of Saudi Arabia.13

  30. Why necessary to Act: • As of now, fracking is banned by the governors of certain New York towns. This is actually a good thing; there is now pressure to push for fracking. Many appeals have forced the issue to the state’s highest court.14 Allowing fracking with state regulation will appease not only the companies who were forced to stop, but also the citizens who reap the benefits and even the surrounding communities that fear environmental risks. • Allocating the revenue to public transportation sector, with help from the $105 billion from Congress from the MAP-21 Act,15 will allow low-income families to be able to afford transportation, work for the sector, and use the system to commute to work they would not otherwise be able to commute to.

  31. Constraints: • Competition: Coal vs Natural Gas • Negative multiplier: there may be a lower demand for gasoline, since prices are going down. But this should not downplay the fact that the US will LEAD in the fracking industry internationally, opening a HUGE market that can buy us time as we develop nonrivaltechonological advances • Political pressure from fearful citizens and activists; controversial • - thus, we regulate (stats mentioned earlier) • General approval for green efforts • Fracking: • -Industry says: No evidence of fracturing fluids found in aquifers • -It is highly unlikely/improbable that fracture fluids can migrate through the overlying rocks to the aquifers • -It is not yet really understood how multiple fractures from repeated fracking operations in the same site may interact • -How fractures may interact with old oil wells, and pre-existing natural faults and fractures

  32. Constraints • -Fracking requires A LOT of water: • Typically 4 to 6 million gallons per well • EPA estimates: • if 35,000 wells are hydraulically fractured annually in the US, the amount of water consumed would be equivalent to that used by 5 million people • SOLUTION: • Recycle water used for fracking. Regulation will help this procedure • International Constraints are few- much of Europe has adopted fracking (but the US has extremely large reserves)

  33. Recap: • Key facts: • -Buildings that participate in the NYC government’s Clean Heat Program save 50% in energy costs when they use Pennsylvania’s natural gas instead of oil­­ (heating too) • -For every $1 billion invested in public transportation, there are 36,000 jobs created, and for every $1 invested is a $4 economic return. • -Households will save $10,000 a year and 4,400 miles of driving with public transportation • -66% New York voters believe fracking should be regulated • -Frackingis outlawed in many NY towns • Points: • -NY fracking will be regulated • -Low-Income Public Transportation will get funding • -More jobs, less foreign dependence, lower carbon emissions • -Lower heating costs, lower costs of gasoline • - When added to carbon tax, this policy will be powerful with regulation

  34. Conclusion: • Low-income communities in NY will thrive from the new funding allocated to the public transportation sector. Fracking will be regulated. Doing both will create jobs and yield huge economic returns. NYC citizens already reap the fracking benefits from Pennsylvania; it is time to permit fracking in all of New York if it is regulated. • Ultimately, carbon emissions, gasoline consumption, and oil consumption will drop with the compromise. Fracking companies will be seen in better light for being green and supporting public transportation. • This is a brilliant alternative to our foreign dependence on oil too. We will become a global power with our large amounts of natural gas as we find a long-term solution for renewable energy. • The public transportation sector will have long-term economic and environmental benefits as well. Since this problem is being debated in the highest of NY State courts, this is a great compromise in the fracking rulings.

  35. Policy Citations: • Endnotes: • Steffy, Loren. "New York's Fracking Hypocrisy Underscores Energy Illiteracy." Forbes. November 29, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/11/29/new-yorks-fracking-hypocrisy-underscores-energy-illiteracy/> • Eaton, Collin. “Gas climbs this week but Thanksgiving still cheaper venture for drivers.” FuelFix. November 27, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/27/gas-climbs-this-week-but-thanksgiving-still-cheaper-venture-for-drivers/> • Greenberg, Steven. “NY and Southern Tier Voters Nearly Evenly Divided on Fracking; Opponents More Passionate than Supporters.” Siena Research Institute. February 4, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013 <http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/SNY%20February%202013%20Poll%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf> • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Regulation of Hydraulic fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act.” May 4, 2012. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm> • Crockett, Christopher. “Methane in Pennsylvania Groundwater May Originate in Fracked Gas Wells” Scientific American. June 28, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-in-pennsylvania-duke-study • American Public Transportation Association. “Facts.” 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/ptbenefits/Pages/FactSheet.aspx?PF=1> • Ibid 6

  36. Policy Citations: • Tabbert, Heather, et al. “Transit Equity Matters: An Equity Index and Regional Analysis of the Red Line and Two Other Proposed CTA transit extensions.” UIC. Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. Dec. 2009. <http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publications/Transit%20Equity%20Matters%2012.09.pdf> • Ibid 3 • Cockernett, Sean. “With production revolution, U.S. is quietly breaking its reliance on foreign oil”. Star-Telegram. Dec. 2, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/12/02/5384187/with-production-revolution-us.html> • Ibid 3 • Ibid 3 • Ibid 10 • Virtanen, Michael. “New York Local Fracking Bans To Be Challenged In State's Highest Court.” Huffington Post. Aug. 31, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/new-york-local-fracking-bans_n_3842031.html> • Department of Transportation. “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).” Aug. 14, 2013. Accessed Dec. 2, 2013.http://www.dot.gov/map21

More Related