How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?
"Natural gas is not a permanent solution to ending our addiction imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece RIGHT NOW. It will help us to keep more of the $350 to $450 billion we spend on imported oil every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in a smart grid, wind and solar energy, and increased energy efficiency. By investing in alternative energies while utilizing natural gas for transportation and energy generation, America can decrease its dependence on OPEC oil, develop the cutting-edge know-how to make wind and solar technology viable, and keep more money at home to pay for the whole thing." —Pickens Plan, a site outlining BP Capital founder T. Boone Pickens' proposed energy strategy
"My town was dying. This is a full-scale mining operation, and I'm all for it. Now we can get back to work." —Brent Sanford, mayor of Watford City, a town at the center of the North Dakota oil boom, in "The New Oil Landscape" (NGM March 2013 issue) Negative impacts of fracking
"According to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundment-temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals."—General Accounting Office report on shale development, September 2012
"The gas 'revolution' has important implications for the direction and intensity of national efforts to develop and deploy low-emission technologies, like [carbon capture and storage] for coal and gas. With nothing more than regulatory policies of the type and stringency simulated here there is no market for these technologies, and the shale gas reduces interest even further. Under more stringent GHG targets these technologies are needed, but the shale gas delays their market role by up to two decades. Thus in the shale boom there is the risk of stunting these programs altogether. While taking advantage of this gift in the short run, treating gas a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future, it is crucial not to allow the greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge."—from a study on shale gas and U.S. energy policy by researchers at MIT (also see: "Shale Gas: A Boon That Could Stunt Alternatives, Study Says")
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Says He Will Get Drug Prices Down By 1500%
U.S. President Donald Trump is now promising to get pharmaceutical companies to significantly reduce the drug prices that they are charging Americans. On Thursday, the White House announced that Trump had just sent letters to the heads of 17 major pharmaceutical companies pushing them to cut the prices that Americans have to pay down to the levels that people in other countries pay. It's not clear yet by what amount—if any—this will eventually get pharmaceutical companies to reduce prescription medication prices for those in the U.S. But chances are any price reductions that end up occurring won't be anywhere near the 1500% that Trump has promised. Trump Spoke Of 600%, 1000% And 1500% Reductions in Drug Prices Yep, 1500% is the percentage that Trump mentioned in a July reception with members of Congress. 'This is something that nobody else can do,' Trump emphasized then. "We're gonna get the drug prices down. Not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60, no. We're gonna get 'em down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent.' Here's a video of this posted on what used to be Twitter: Getting the prices of medications—or of anything that's sold by companies for that matter—down by more than 100% is certainly something that no one else has done. It's probably something you have never even dreamed of before, since for-profit companies are usually trying to make, you know, a profit. So, it's kind of true what Trump then subsequently said, 'We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000 percent, by 1,100, 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 700, 600; not 30 or 40 or 50 percent but numbers the likes of which you've never even dreamed of before.' A video of this was also posted on X: Let's do the math. Say a bottle of a medication currently costs $100. A 25% price reduction would bring this cost down to $75. A 100% price reduction would make the medication completely free. Any reduction greater than 100% would presumably mean that the manufacturer would have to pay you. Thus, a 200% price reduction would result in a $100 payday per bottle for you. Holy, new way to earn money, Batman! If Trump can get you a 1500% reduction, hallelujah, time to replace filming YouTube videos with 'buying' medications as the way to make money. Now, the chances that the Trump administration will achieve a 1500% reduction in drug prices are probably a whole lot less than 100%. Getting pharmaceutical companies who have been enjooying very healthy profits for years to pay customers to take their drugs would be quite a trick. Plus, the pharmaceutical companies would have to change their advertisements so that instead of telling you that you may have a condition that you don't realize you have, the ads might say something like 'You're fine and don't have anything that pharmaceutical interventions can't fix. Please don't use our medications. We can't afford you to do so.' Trump Sent Letters To 17 Pharmaceutical Companies Outlining Steps To Reduce Drug Prices That 1500% number may not have been in the letters that Trump sent on Thursday to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Assuming that the letters had the right postage, they went to the leaders of AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi. According to the White House, the letters listed steps to reduce the prices of prescription drugs in the U.S. 'to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations (known as the most-favored-nation, or MFN, price)' The steps are as follows: The letters asserted that there's been 'global freeloading on American pharmaceutical innovation' and did warn that if the outlined steps were't taken by the pharmaceutical companies the federal government "will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices." Trump Signed An Executive Order Regarding Drug Prices In May Pharmaceutical companies can now be 1500% sure that the Trump administration has them in its political line-of-sight. Back on May 12, Trump signed an Executive Order that asserted the following: 'The United States has less than five percent of the world's population and yet funds around three quarters of global pharmaceutical profits. This egregious imbalance is orchestrated through a purposeful scheme in which drug manufacturers deeply discount their products to access foreign markets, and subsidize that decrease through enormously high prices in the United States.' That Executive Order indicated that the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is currently Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 'shall facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell their products to American patients at the most-favored-nation price.' Americans Do Pay Higher Drug Prices Than Those In Other Countries It is true that drug prices are typically significantly higher in the U.S. than in other countries. For example, a June 2024 publication in the RAND Health Quarterly described how drug prices in the U.S. were on average nearly three times higher than those in 33 other high-income countries. Over the past two decades, yearly rises in drug prices have easily outpaced inflation. A 2024 KFF poll showed that the majority of Americans are worried about prescription medication costs being too high. Such worries shouldn't be that surprising. Many prescription medications are not like mullets or fruitcakes. Taking them is often not a choice. Your well-being and even your life could literally depend on being able to afford the medication. And many pharmaceutical companies have shown no qualms about raising the price of medications as soon as they can. For example, even after receiving substantial funding from the U.S. government, Pfizer and Moderna quickly raised the prices of their COVID-19 vaccines as soon as the government wouldn't completely pay for them, as I described in Forbes in 2023. It is also true that talk about drug prices being too high in the U.S. is not new. Yet, none of the Presidential Administrations over the past two decades have done much to significantly alter these trends. I've written about state-wide efforts to reduce drug prices, such as Propostion 61 in California. But there's been a lack of more comprehensive efforts at the federal level to do so. The challenge is that a number of trends in the current U.S. system are contributing to higher drug prices. For example, mergers and acquisitions over the years have led to fewer, larger and more dominant pharmaceutical companies with less competition. Existing cost structures and requirements make it more difficult for new pharmaceutical companies to emerge and provide more competition. Cuts in funding and support for scientific research has made it harder and harder to develop new products. Fewer new products leave patients with fewer alternatives and existing products with less competition. Consumers and different purchasers have lacked negotiating power in general. At the same time, it seems like more and more people have been getting pieces of the drug price pie. This has included various middle people such as pharmacy benefits managers and different administrators. The marketing budgets of pharmaceutical companies have continued to grow as well. On top of that, investors have expected pharmaceutical companies to have ever increasing profitability. All of this means that a single simple intervention probably has a small percentage chance of reducing drug prices in a sustainable manner. Instead, a system approach may be needed, meaning multiple interventions at different points in the system that work together in a coordinated manner. Otherwise, there may be unintended consequences. A sustainable reduction in drug prices means one in which the math works out for all patients. You don't want a situation where the prices of some drugs are reduced while those of others are raised. You also don't want a situation where the costs end up being hidden.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump tells Schumer to ‘go to hell' amid standoff over confirming president's nominees
Donald Trump Senate leadership Congressional news Trump appointmentsFacebookTweetLink Follow President Donald Trump told Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' in a Saturday post on social media as Senate leaders and the White House struggle to end a standoff over confirming Trump's nominees. Senate Republican leader John Thune, Schumer and the White House had been engaged in a round of intense talks to end the standoff over Trump's nominees and let senators head home for the August recess, sources briefed on the conversations told CNN. But Trump's post Saturday signaled that talks have all but collapsed, as he wrote that Schumer's demands were 'egregious and unprecedented.' Democrats have been slow-walking Trump's lower-level nominees, forcing Thune to keep the Senate in session this weekend to confirm them. In the minority, Democrats have the power to force Thune to jump over time-consuming hurdles before they can vote. Schumer made several demands in order to agree to let a batch of nominations be quickly confirmed by the Senate, according to the sources. The demands include the unfreezing of federal funds for an array of programs, including the National Institutes of Health and foreign aid. Schumer also wants Trump to agree that he won't attempt to push through another package to slash federal funding known as 'rescissions' — after a $9 billion package to codify some cuts was approved earlier this summer. Trump earlier in the week called on the Senate to remain in session and skip recess until all his nominees were confirmed. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL! Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS,' Trump wrote.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Smithsonian Issues Update on Trump's Impeachment Exhibit Controversy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Saturday released a statement on its website announcing that it would reinstall President Donald Trump to its exhibit about impeachments, saying that it never intended his removal to be temporary. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday evening. Why It Matters The museum removed references to Trump's two impeachments from its exhibit on presidential impeachments last month, igniting a debate about historical accuracy and political influence in public institutions. The controversy centered on "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden" exhibit, which included a temporary label about Trump's impeachments that was added in September 2021. Trump remains the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. During his second administration, Trump has influenced the museum, which is independent of the government but receives funding from Congress. In March, he signed an executive order to eliminate "anti-American ideology" in the museum and to "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness." What To Know The Smithsonian confirmed the temporary label remained in place until July before being removed during a review of legacy content. In a statement posted to the museum's website, the Smithsonian said the placard "did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation." "It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case," the statement continued. "For these reasons, we removed the placard. We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit." The museum assured that the exhibit in the coming weeks would see its impeachment section updated to reflect "all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history." "As the keeper of memory for the nation, it is our privilege and responsibility to tell accurate and complete histories," the museum wrote. The decision to remove the placard stoked concerns in the public about possible government interference, the shaping of public memory, and the integrity of historical curation at America's most prominent museum complex. A Smithsonian spokesperson previously told Newsweek: "In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is seen on the National Mall on March 28 in Washington, D.C. Inset: President Donald Trump speaks to the media before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn... The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is seen on the National Mall on March 28 in Washington, D.C. Inset: President Donald Trump speaks to the media before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington D.C., on August 1. More// Mehmet Eser/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Why Was Donald Trump Impeached? Trump faced two impeachment efforts by Democrats during his first administration: First on December 18, 2019, and then again on January 13, 2021 - just one week before he left office. He was ultimately acquitted both times. The first impeachment charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings with Ukraine. Both articles passed the House with no support from any Republicans, and some Democrats split from the party. The second effort occurred following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with some Republicans in the House - most notably Liz Cheney - breaking from the party and supporting the effort to impeach. What People Are Saying Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote on X: "Orwellian is a much-overused phrase; but forcing the Smithsonian to erase the fact of Trump's impeachments is right out of 1984. Did they drop that stuff down the memory hole?" Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, posted images of media coverage about Trump's impeachments on X, writing: "This is what Donald Trump wants you to forget. American never will." Former GOP Congressman and Trump critic Joe Walsh called the Post's report on X: "Despicable. Reprehensible. Dishonest. Cowardly. Trump's 2 impeachments are historical facts. They are both part of American history. He's using the powers of his office to try to rewrite history. I'm done saying 'shame on him.' Shame on us for electing him." A White House spokesperson told NPR: "We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness. The Trump administration will continue working to ensure that the Smithsonian removes all improper ideology and once again unites and instills pride in all Americans regarding our great history." What Happens Next? The Smithsonian acknowledged the need for a comprehensive update of its presidential impeachment exhibit. The institution stated the impeachment section will be revised in the coming weeks to "ensure it accurately represents all historical impeachment proceedings." No specific timetable was provided for when Trump's impeachments or other new content will be permanently reintroduced.
