Radical environmental activists have often sought to portray shale energy production as a dangerous and reckless activity that is poorly understood by even those who work in the energy sector. Anyone who has seen shale energy production firsthand knows that this is not the case, as Brian Robson explains in a post on Breaking Energy.

2014 was a banner year for "state and local taxes and royalties" from oil and gas production in Texas. 

An op-ed by Texas Oil and Gas Association President Todd Staples in the Star-Telegram explains just how impactful this money was across the state.  

"…Safe and responsible oil and gas production is unmistakably helping the state meet the needs of Texans. The state’s rainy-day fund, money socked away almost exclusively from oil and gas severance taxes, has been used to support public schools, children’s health insurance, economic development initiatives and more. Last year, voters approved a constitutional amendment to direct billions of dollars in oil and natural gas tax revenue toward Texas highways…"

Energy companies in Texas are driving the development of technologies that reduce water usage in the production of our shale energy resources. The Associated Press reported this week that energy "companies using hydraulic fracturing in Texas say they are recycling more water than ever before."
 
The AP cited recent testimony by Texas Railroad Commission Chairwoman Christi Craddick explaining that these successes were due, in part, to recent moves by the Texas Legislature to encourage industry led water conservation efforts. Craddick noted that the recent rule change brought about a cooperative approach intended to allow companies to "be innovative" in their approach to water conservation. This approach has resulted in significant gains in water conservation.

Several weeks ago we examined the new set of talking points that anti-shale activists have used to attack the strong environmental record of shale gas. As we noted then, activists are now claiming methane emissions from shale gas production operations mean that these energy resources are much more harmful than previously thought.

The fact that activists settled on this issue as their latest angle to attack American shale energy was no coincidence. Natural gas is a low carbon fuel and this fact does not sit well with many professional supporters of other more expensive forms of energy. Media outlets were quick to seize on the issue as the "fracking’s Achilles’ heel."

Unfortunately for these handwringing activists and their media cheerleaders, these claims are now coming unraveled. While the idea that natural gas is somehow a climate menace always rang a little hollow, new research is demonstrating just how off base these claims are.

In the spirit of Valentine’s Day, now is the perfect time to show a little love for the overlooked and underappreciated sources of energy that make our modern lives tick. 

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby did just that in his "valentine for fossil fuels" this week. Contrary to the calls by some radical climate activists for Americans "to sever our ties with the fossil fuel industry" through divestment and other measures, Jacoby presents a compelling case that we should celebrate the contributions of the energy industry to our daily lives.

Jacoby points out that "the rise of fossil fuels has led to dramatic gains in human progress — whether that progress is measured in terms of life expectancy, income, education, health, sanitation, transportation, or leisure. Nearly everything that is comfortable and convenient about modern civilization depends on the ready availability of energy." Even the most radical activists understand this, as they "know better than to push people to give up electricity, air travel, computers, or central heating — all of which would vanish without the fossil fuel industry."

An interesting connection was made this week by Forbes contributor Bill Tucker in his article "Its Not The Fracking Making Trouble in Texas". Tucker zeroes in on the anti-vaccination movement and explains that there are common threads among this and other anti-science movements that have taken root in communities across the United States.

According to Tucker, the "anti-vaxxer crowd has on its side nothing except bad science and a lot of emotion…What does that debate have to do with energy? Bad science just keeps appearing everywhere propelled by powerful emotions."

A new line of anti-shale gas rhetoric has emerged from the professional environmentalists in recent months. As other scare tactics have lost their strength, these activists have moved on to methane emissions as the latest threat to humanity.

Stephen Moore writes in The Washington Times that this "methane scare" being pushed by "Big Green" is due to the fact that "almost all of the major air pollutants have declined markedly over the last several decades, so environmental groups need to invent new scare tactics to fill up their coffers. The emissions of lead, sulfur and smog have all fallen by at least half since 1970. The air in major American cities such as Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Chicago are as clean as they've been in many decades. Big Green is running out of things to complain about."

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving credibility to this scare tactic. The EPA recently "announced major new regulations on the emissions of methane into the air from oil and gas production. It calls methane a ‘potent’ pollutant and its new rules would require a 45 percent reduction by 2025 from 2012 levels."

In the public debate over America’s energy future, environmental activists have long claimed that their extreme positions are simply a reflection of the best available science on energy issues. 

This cloak of legitimacy is unraveling as these activists are repeatedly shown to be anti-fossil fuel zealots who are willing to say anything to promote their cause. Simon Lomax of Breaking Energy cast a harsh light on this phenomenon earlier this week in a blog post that explores the abuse and misuse of science by anti-shale energy advocates.

Supporters of American energy can be consumed by the issues of the day or week, and we often lose sight of the truly amazing aspects of the American shale energy revolution. The holiday season is the perfect time to slow down and take a broader look at exactly why the American shale energy revolution has been so important to our nation.

An article by Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens ("The Marvel of American Resilience") frames this conversation in an interesting way. Stephens asks readers to "imagine an economic historian in the year 2050 talking to her students about the most consequential innovations of the early 21st century—the Model Ts and Wright flyers and Penicillins of our time. What would make her list?"

Stephens thinks that the innovations that led to the shale energy revolution would be certain to make the list along with social media, mobile information technology, and newly discovered medical innovations for treating cancer and other diseases that still claim too many lives. "Surely fracking—shorthand for the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that is making the U.S. the world’s leading oil and gas producer—would be noted."

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced this week that his administration would prohibit “hydraulic fracturing in New York State because of concerns over health risks, ending years of debate over a method of extracting natural gas.” This move was hailed by anti-shale energy activists, but many analysts observed that it was a nakedly political move that had little to do with science or data.

Katie Brown of Energy In Depth was among the commentators pointing out the inaccuracy of the claim “that there isn’t enough scientific evidence to ensure the process (of hydraulic fracturing) is safe.” In fact, according to Brown, many of the studies cited by the New York Department of Health as influencing their decision have “been either discredited or shown to have exceedingly faulty methodologies.” Also, “when discussing just about every one of these dubious studies, DOH admits that they actually didn’t have any evidence to link hydraulic fracturing to health impacts.” Michael Lynch of Forbes observed that the move gives the impression that “regulation (in New York) is a popularity contest, not science driven.”