If they could get the gas out of the ground by “conventional” means, I wouldn’t want them to do it.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_13/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Target Atmospheric CO[font size="1"]2[/font]: Where Should Humanity Aim?[/font]
December 2008
[font size=3]Humanity must find a path to reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide, to less than the amount in the air today, if climate disasters are to be averted, according to a study recently published in Open Atmospheric Science Journal by a group of ten scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France. They argue that such a path is feasible, but requires a prompt moratorium on new coal use that does not capture CO[font size="1"]2[/font] and phase-out of existing coal emissions by 2030.
"There is a bright side to this conclusion" according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies' James Hansen, lead author on the study, "by following a path that leads to a lower CO[font size="1"]2[/font] amount we can alleviate a number of problems that had begun to seem inevitable, such as increased storm intensities, expanded desertification, loss of coral reefs, and loss of mountain glaciers that supply fresh water to hundreds of millions of people."
…
The second figure shows that if coal emissions were thus phased out between 2010 and 2030, and if emissions from [font color="red"]unconventional fossil fuels[/font] such as tar shale were minimized, atmospheric CO[font size="1"]2[/font] would peak at 400-425 ppm and then slowly decline. The peak CO[font size="1"]2[/font] amount would depend upon whether the smaller oil and gas reserve estimates of IPCC or the optimistic estimates of EIA are more accurate. The authors note that even if the large EIA reserve estimates are valid, peak CO[font size="1"]2[/font] could be kept close to 400 ppm [font color="red"]if the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground[/font] via a rising price on carbon emissions that discourages remote exploration and environmental regulations that place some areas off-limits.
…[/font][/font]
Gas that is produced through “fracking” is an examples of “unconventional fossil fuel.”
Hansen & co. told us that we need to keep that gas in the ground to limit the volume of CO[font size="1"]
2[/font] we pump into the atmosphere, not because “fracking” itself is so evil. If we leave it in the ground, we won’t burn it.
= new reply since forum marked as read