Texas Emissions

My classmate Nick Eckert posted a commentary titled, Texas Emissions, on his blog, texasglimpse.blogspot.com.  In his commentary he talks about tackling the problem of carbon emissions, and how Texas is falling behind on the switch to alternative energy compared to other states.  

Eckert mentions that according to US Energy Information Administration, Texas ranks number one in total carbon emissions.  At first, this doesn't seem unreasonable.  Texas is the second most populated state so it is only reasonable for it to be high on the list, but further research would change your mind.  Texas is the undisputed leader in total carbon emissions with a total of 656 million metric tons.  This is more than the next two states combined.  The amount of disregard that Texas has for the environment is just careless.

There have been efforts to try to tackle this issue at the federal level, but none have proved to be successful in Texas.  Eckert mentions the Federal Clean Air Act.  This act regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.  As Eckert says, Texas is not keeping up with the standards because the state has grown accustom to its energy consumption.  The main culprit is power plants.  According to an article by TheTexas Tribune, power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of the state’s carbon dioxide. 

Eckert suggests that we invest more money on renewable energy.  I completely agree with this statement.  We are always procrastinating, and looking for short term solutions for a long term problem.  Even natural gas is not a viable solution.  Texas has enough natural gas to supply us with energy for approximately 92 years; but what happens after its depleted, and the long term effects it will have on the environment. As Eckert says, standards will keep getting stricter causing existing power plants either shut down or have to pay a substantial amount of money to conform to the standards. We need to think about future generations and how we can make their lives a better place.  

Is Fracking Worth The Risk?

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a process that extracts natural gas from deep within the earth.  It is accomplished by drilling down into the earth, then horizontally, and injecting pressurized water, chemicals, and sand through a pipe. This creates new channels in the rock where the natural gas can be extracted. 

First I want to address the pros and cons of fracking in Texas.  There is a lot of natural gas deep within the earth.  The amount is big enough to make the whole US, let alone Texas, energy independent for about a century.  This is a big deal because it would make us less dependent on unstable countries in the Middle East for oil.  Also, using natural gas as an energy source creates fewer carbon emissions than coal.  The positives of fracking can help Texas, and the US’ economy, and is at least worth considering.

Alongside the advantages to using hydraulic featuring, there is also many downsides to using this method. Firstly, between two to eight million gallons of water is used in an average sized fracking well.  According to Michigan Live, as many as 35 million gallons of freshwater is removed from nearby aquifers for each well in Michigan.  Texas is always in a drought and cannot afford to waste this much water.  Fracking involves pumping highly toxic chemicals into the earth, and there is a chance that it could reach, and poison the groundwater.  The chemicals are so toxic, that the water cannot even be cleaned in a treatment plant.  The companies that make the fracking fluid are not required to disclose the mixture of chemicals, so it doesn't allow scientists to study the harmful effects, or allow for residents to prepare in case an accident does happen.  A big downside to hydraulic fracturing is the greenhouse gases.  Natural gas is “cleaner” than oil when burned, but an average of 3% of the gas is leaked out in the fracking process.  This gas consists largely of methane, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.  The fracking process also uses a lot of energy, and the wells are exhausted relatively quickly so it is necessary to drill many wells to meet the demand. 

Fracking can have a significant effect on Texas’ economy.  In time it can be a useful source of energy until we can eventually harness renewable energy in the practical manor, but I believe that the negatives outweigh the positives.  Until more research is done on the fracking process, and the chemicals used, the risks are too high to make this a primary source of energy in Texas. 

The Truth About Electronic Cigarettes

My classmate S. Singh posted a commentary titled, Keep e-cigs from being villianized inTexas, on his blog, lonestartxgov.blogspot.com.  In this commentary he talks about how electronic cigarettes are being heavily criticized here in Texas.  I strongly agree with Singh because I have family members who have quit smoking using this device.

The concept is heavily criticized mainly because of lack of knowledge.  Many people don’t understand how these devices work, and jump to conclusions because of the name. Singh mentions that regular cigarettes have over 4000 harmful, cancer causing chemicals that e-cigs do not.  Electronic cigarettes work by vaporizing nicotine, the product that satisfies a smokers craving for cigarettes. It works similarly to nicotine patches, or gum, but gives the user the feeling of smoking an actual cigarette by inhaling and exhaling the vapor.  According to Medical News Today, people who use electronic cigarettes are 60% more likely to succeed, compared to people who use willpower or nicotine replacement therapies. 

Many critics are against e-cigs because they assume that minors will use them as a gateway to traditional tobacco products.  Singh states that there are already restrictions in place to prevent their sale to people under the age of 18. Electronic cigarettes are specifically made to be a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes.  Any reputable brand of e-cig will advertise this, and does not target a younger audience like cigarette companies used to do back in the day. 

Singh also talks about an article by the New York Post titled, “E-cigs could save hundredsof millions of lives: scientists.” In this article, they say that 53 leading scientists have warned the World Health Organization to not classify e-cigs as tobacco product “as it could jeopardize a major opportunity to slash disease and deaths caused by smoking.”  They also state that e-cigs are “among the most significant health innovations of the 21^st century.” 

I personally have never smoked a cigarette, but I completely agree with S. Singh. I believe that electronic cigarettes are something that will revolutionize the industry, and save millions of lives in the process.