john hanger secretary of the pennsylania department of environmental protection describes the natural gas drilling and extraction as a trade off. explain what the trade off is do you believe this is a good trade? natural gas is often described as a transition fuel and a cleaner burning fossil fuel. explain how these claims and incomplete. given what you learned from this movie, is a natural gas a fuel that we should explore and contract more of?
The trade-off that John Hanger described is between the economic benefits of natural gas drilling and extraction and the environmental risks involved. The economic benefits include job creation, revenue for communities and companies, and reduced dependence on foreign oil. However, the environmental risks include air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and harm to human health.
Whether this is a good trade depends on one's priorities and values. Hanger argues that it is a good trade because natural gas production creates jobs and revenue while reducing reliance on foreign oil. Others may argue that the environmental risks are too great and that renewable energy sources should be prioritized instead.
The claim that natural gas is a transition fuel comes from the idea that it is a cleaner-burning fossil fuel than coal or oil. While it does produce less carbon dioxide when burned, it still releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, during extraction and transportation. Additionally, the drilling and extraction process can contaminate soil and water with chemicals and toxins.
In light of these environmental risks, it may not be wise to explore and contract more natural gas. Instead, we should focus on transitioning to truly renewable energy sources that do not carry the same risks and harms to humans and the planet.
The trade-off that John Hanger, the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, refers to is the balancing act between the benefits and drawbacks of natural gas drilling and extraction.
On one hand, natural gas is considered a transition fuel because it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal or oil when burned for energy. It is also described as a cleaner burning fossil fuel since it releases lower levels of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter into the atmosphere.
However, there are a few reasons why these claims are incomplete. Firstly, although natural gas combustion generates less carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) compared to other fossil fuels, extracting and transporting natural gas can result in methane leaks, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Methane has a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, so even small leakage rates can offset the climate benefits of burning natural gas.
Secondly, the process of extracting natural gas, known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, can have negative environmental impacts. It involves injecting large amounts of water, chemicals, and sand underground to release gas from rock formations. Fracking has been associated with water contamination, depletion of water resources, habitat disruption, and potential health risks.
Lastly, relying on natural gas as a significant energy source may hinder the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. By investing in and relying on natural gas, there might be less incentive and funding for sustainable alternatives such as solar, wind, or geothermal power.
Considering these factors, whether natural gas is a fuel that we should explore and contract more of is subjective and depends on various factors. It would be best to carefully weigh the potential environmental impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and long-term sustainability goals when making decisions about the future of natural gas exploration and utilization.