SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
While shale gas may have lower carbon emissions than dirtier forms of fossil fuel such as coal and crude oil, the exponential extraction and use of shale gas, says the report--Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies--will push out the use of sustainable energy solutions such as wind and solar and will thus increase, not decrease, overall carbon outputs going forward.
"Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce U.S. carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking," writes Joseph Romm at The Energy Collective. "That's because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency -- which is obviously what will happen in the real world."
Additionally, as Romm points out, emission calculations related to shale gas should not be limited to the burning of shale gas. The excavation process itself, including the highly toxic practice of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, involves a "high rate of methane leakage." Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and should be calculated in the overall estimates of shale gas's climate impact--a factor industry proponents fail to include in their analyses.
"From a climate perspective, then, the shale gas revolution is essentially irrelevant," writes Romm, "and arguably a massive diversion of resources and money that could have gone into deploying carbon-free sources."
Conversely, as the Stanford study shows through a series of projected models, a progressive carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry would significantly reduce carbon emission in the future:
__________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
While shale gas may have lower carbon emissions than dirtier forms of fossil fuel such as coal and crude oil, the exponential extraction and use of shale gas, says the report--Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies--will push out the use of sustainable energy solutions such as wind and solar and will thus increase, not decrease, overall carbon outputs going forward.
"Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce U.S. carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking," writes Joseph Romm at The Energy Collective. "That's because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency -- which is obviously what will happen in the real world."
Additionally, as Romm points out, emission calculations related to shale gas should not be limited to the burning of shale gas. The excavation process itself, including the highly toxic practice of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, involves a "high rate of methane leakage." Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and should be calculated in the overall estimates of shale gas's climate impact--a factor industry proponents fail to include in their analyses.
"From a climate perspective, then, the shale gas revolution is essentially irrelevant," writes Romm, "and arguably a massive diversion of resources and money that could have gone into deploying carbon-free sources."
Conversely, as the Stanford study shows through a series of projected models, a progressive carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry would significantly reduce carbon emission in the future:
__________________
While shale gas may have lower carbon emissions than dirtier forms of fossil fuel such as coal and crude oil, the exponential extraction and use of shale gas, says the report--Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies--will push out the use of sustainable energy solutions such as wind and solar and will thus increase, not decrease, overall carbon outputs going forward.
"Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce U.S. carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking," writes Joseph Romm at The Energy Collective. "That's because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency -- which is obviously what will happen in the real world."
Additionally, as Romm points out, emission calculations related to shale gas should not be limited to the burning of shale gas. The excavation process itself, including the highly toxic practice of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, involves a "high rate of methane leakage." Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and should be calculated in the overall estimates of shale gas's climate impact--a factor industry proponents fail to include in their analyses.
"From a climate perspective, then, the shale gas revolution is essentially irrelevant," writes Romm, "and arguably a massive diversion of resources and money that could have gone into deploying carbon-free sources."
Conversely, as the Stanford study shows through a series of projected models, a progressive carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry would significantly reduce carbon emission in the future:
__________________