

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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.

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:

__________________
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.

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:

__________________