In a telephone interview, Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline consulting expert with 40 years of experience in the field, applauded the intention to fix leaks but cautions about being overly ambitious: “I know the public would love to have a leak detection system that is 100 percent reliable,” said Kuprewicz. “But it’s an extremely difficult challenge.” “Some leaks, we can’t fix them without ripping up cities,” Kuprewicz told me in a phone interview. “They can’t be fixed overnight. Putting forth the illusion that this is going to reduce all emissions is not realistic. Take some of the worst areas, like Boston. Are you going to shut the city down?” In addition to buried infrastructures, compliance is an issue. Kuprewicz highlighted the industry-known distinction between “safety” leaks — gas leaks that pose a direct threat to humans — and leaks with a less urgent repair priority, since there is no immediate risk of loss of life. Even though by law, safety leaks must be promptly addressed, Kuprewicz noted that in some regions, enforcement and repairs are lax. Kuprewicz summed up the problem: “Fixing the leaks could take 10 to 20 years. Can you find all the methane emitters? No.” While Kuprewicz applauded a plan to lower some of the more highly egregious emissions, he predicted that “It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In many regions, they should be replacing systems,” which is also projected in the Clinton plan. “But if someone says ‘replace all pipelines,’ they just dropped a trillion-dollar bill. Who is paying for that?” Kuprewicz pointed out that the gas industry would be loath to carry the costs for these gas infrastructures, without either extensive federal support or ample rate hikes — or both. Under Clinton’s energy plan, it’s projected that U.S. taxpayers would be asked to cover some of the costs for an updated gas delivery system. And what about newly installed pipelines? “Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it doesn’t leak,” said Kuprewicz. Clearly, rebranding shale gas as “clean energy” is misleading. Clinton also revived the discredited gas-industry marketing term “bridge fuel,” implying that a billion-dollar investment in fracking would lead to the use of renewables. The concept makes even less sense now than it did over a decade ago, before the coal phase-out was underway. Before fracking’s impact on climate change and the contamination of water aquifers were well established, it was sold as a cleaner alternative to coal. Since then, research has demonstrated that in their net contribution to climate disruption, coal and gas are nearly equivalent, while gas is worse in the short term. This year the world’s largest coal company went bankrupt along with 28 others. Even China, which relied on coal power, is aggressively transitioning to solar. What Then Must We Do? Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson developed a 50-state strategy for driving the U.S. into the promised land of renewable energy. As Bill McKibben summarized in the New Republic:
Taken together, Jacobson’s work demonstrates conclusively that America could generate 80 to 85 percent of its power from sun, wind, and water by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. In the past year, the Stanford team has offered similar plans for 139 nations around the world.
Among Democatic voters, 12 million Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders mandated the urgent need for climate mobilization during this season’s primary. If the proposed Clinton energy policy won’t forestall climate catastrophe, then voters must pull themselves away from the Trump drama and pay attention to the climate. Following a Democratic primary focused on money in politics, it’s fair to ask whether Clinton has the will, the capacity, or the liberty to put climate considerations above the interests of her energy-industry donors. Your support matters…

Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.

You can help level the playing field. Become a member.

Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.

Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG
In this Article:
#2016 election#climate change#coal#donald trump#fracking#global warming#hillary clinton#paris climate agreement#td-original