英语访谈节目:国内石油产量增加,经济效益优于环境保护?

ROBERT BRYCE:Well, look, this is a technology that is not new. It's been used over a million times over the last six decades.

The points that Ms. Sinding makes, I agree with some of them. But there are three interrelated points if we look at this in the big picture in terms of public relations. One is that we're talking about water, which is an emotional issue for everyone. They don't—no one wants contaminated water.

Second, the oil and gas industry has a lower favorability rating than Congress. This is according to a recent Gallup poll. So beating up on the oil and gas industry for the environmental groups is extremely easy. And, finally, the environmental groups have a very simple message, which is, basically, big oil wants to pollute your water.

And so the drilling industry's only response is, well, no, we don't. But when you look at the overall balance -- and I'm not dismissing the fence line issues that are involved here, the truck traffic, et cetera, but this is an incredible benefit to the U.S. economy.

If you look at the period from—in the 19—in the—from 2003 through 2008, natural gas prices averaged over $7. Today, they're under $3. That results in a savings to the U.S. economy of $263 million a day. That's $96 billion a year. This is incredibly good news for the U.S. economy at a critical time for —when a lot of people are out of work.

JEFFREY BROWN:Well, so this goes to that balance question.

And, Kate Sinding, we heard—in our setup, we heard Ken Salazar say that it's a false choice to pick between protecting the environment and developing more oil and gas.

KATE SINDING:Well, I would say it's a false choice between protecting the environment and economic development and energy security.

Where we need to be investing, where we need to be creating new policies and new laws is in the area of facilitating the rapid development of energy efficiency and renewables. Obviously, we're in favor of economic development for this country and economic security, and energy security.

But we need to be focusing not on yet another fossil fuel, one that, although it may be cleaner-burning than coal or oil, will not help us solve the climate crisis.

In fact, numerous recent studies show that if we end up with decades of dependence on gas, rather than investments in renewables and energy efficiency, we're going to be further set back in our effort to deal with the climate crisis.

So that's where we need to be focusing our policies and our investments. And energy efficiency, renewables, those are good, clean jobs, sustainable jobs, and the kind of economic development that the country should be looking for.

JEFFREY BROWN:And it sounds like you are fearing what we heard in one of the reports, that the boom as is now undermines those kinds of investments.

Robert Bryce, what about that? Is that—is that a possibility here, or is that actually happening?

ROBERT BRYCE:Well, look, no one's opposed to energy efficiency. That's a—there's been bipartisan agreement on it, on increases in energy efficiency for decades.

And our economy has grown to be one of the most energy-efficient economies in the world. We have made great strides there. Renewables, I'm all for renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house. They simply cannot provide the vast scale of energy that is demanded here in the United States or around the world.

Natural gas continues to be vilified as a fossil fuel. Look at what the International Energy Agency said in May. This is the IEA, based in Paris.

They said that, since 2006, the U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions by 430 million tons. It's more than any other country on the planet.

And this is not a perfect solution in terms of reducing CO2, but why did the IEA point out—point to the U.S.? Because low-cost natural gas is displacing coal. This is a great story.

Are there costs? Of course there are. There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy or anything else.

JEFFREY BROWN:Kate Sinding, just in our last minute, do you want to answer him, respond to that?

KATE SINDING:Yes, sure.

I mean, I saw a study just a couple of days ago earlier this week that suggests that the decrease in CO2 emissions in this country are not so much a function of gas displacing coal, as it is a function of the economic downturn. And there's no question that these new shale plates are diverting investments from renewables and efficiency improvements, which we—there is still enormous untapped potential there.

So that's—again, that's where we have got to be focused. Nobody is saying we can turn the lights off tomorrow. Nobody is denying that this is a country with enormous energy needs. But we have got to refocus our policies now to getting renewables up to scale as quickly as we possibly can, and not get lost in a hole that natural gas threatens.

JEFFREY BROWN:OK, and a brief last word from you, Mr. Bryce. How do you want to end this discussion?

ROBERT BRYCE:Sure.

Well, I will just point to a recent study by IHS, which said that the shale revolution, shale development, unconventional natural gas, will support 1.5 million jobs in the U.S. by 2015. These are jobs that are desperately needed. Do we need to protect the environment? Of course, but the natural gas revolution, the tight oil revolution, unqualified good news for the U.S. economy.

JEFFREY BROWN:Robert Bryce, Kate Sinding, thank you both very much.

ROBERT BRYCE:Thank you.

KATE SINDING:Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF:And you can watch our complete energy series, read a detailed report on fracking, and find a link to Prairie Public's extended look at the oil boom in North Dakota on our Web page.