- There is GOING to be some pollution. The question is how much.
- It would be useful to compare lifecycle pollution from fracking to other energy sources.
- The precautionary principle is too strong, but it would be good to have a strong penalty -- and fast process to administer it -- for pollution (or lack thereof -- in PA and NY).
- This (social) discussion should not compare peer review (which has problems) vs populism (ditto), but property rights vs regulation.
- Grant discusses regulation versus common law remedies. Regulation will crowd out common law and it's often myopic and/or biased. Common law can work and it would not take too long to find victims. I reckon that Deepwater would not have happened with an (open ended) common law liability. (The TX fertilizer plant that exploded "only" had $1 million in insurance but did $100 million in damages.)
* Grant and I talked during a hangout yesterday: 64 min on YouTube or mp3. He has written more on these topics, i.e.,
- U.S. Shale Gas Meets European Climate Policy
- Bridging the Gap? Natural Gas and Long-term Climate Change Goals
***I spoke to a guy from Shell on Wednesday who claimed that Shell could reduce carbon emissions at Alberta's tar sands by 40% at a cost of $1 per barrel. My figure is based on the cost of desalination ($1/m3), noting that it takes about 5 bbl of water to produce 1bbl of shale oil. Since 5bbl is 0.8 m3, that translates to $0.80/bbl of oil, given "salt water" as an input. If the water's 6x more polluted, it would cost $4.80/bbl.