The United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions over the past six years largely due “market forces” and “technological advances” that have allowed for more domestic natural gas exploration and use.
According to a report from the International Energy Agency, “breakthroughs in how natural gas is extracted from underground shale formations were the key factors that led to the reductions” because “natural gas has a low carbon footprint.”
Since natural gas is “widely available in the United States,” entrepreneurs “are flocking to extract it from new areas.”
The report noted that the U.S. could be energy independent and a net exporter of oil in 20 years by opening up more land for fracking, which would also create well-paying jobs and boost the economies of struggling regions across the United States.
John Griffin, executive director of Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan, speculated this good news that “doesn’t get reported as much” because the progressive press and environmentalists want to demonize fracking and domestic energy sources.
“The mainstream media doesn’t want to report these kinds of things,” Griffin said.
Aric Nesbitt (R), a member of the Michigan House of Representatives, agreed and said left-wing journalists would not cover this story because “it doesn’t fit their narrative.”
He also found it interesting that environmental groups were opposed to fracking, which studies have shown help reduce carbon emissions.
“You know about five years ago the environmental groups were supportive of natural gas technology as a cleaner alternative,” Rep. Nesbitt said. “I think the reason they turned against it is because they can’t control it… They always want some kind of central control. So what’s their real goal? Is it a reduction in carbon emissions, or is it something else?”
As Capitol Confidential notes, the reduction in carbon emissions had nothing to do with “efforts to curb so-called man-made climate change.” In addition, “government mandated ‘green’ energy didn’t cause the reductions. Neither did environmentalist pressure. And the U.S. did not go along with the Kyoto Protocol to radically cut CO2 emissions.”
Griffin, the executive director of Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan, again wondered why the mainstream media and environmentalists oppose finding more domestic sources of energy that is also cleaner, makes America energy independent and creates good-paying jobs that gives more Americans the potential to move up the economic latter.
“The real question is, to what extent we use our own natural resources or purchase energy from government-owned resources in places like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait?” Griffin said. “The world uses $84 million worth of oil a day. Should the money we spend on energy go to our own stockholders or to sheiks?”