SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Fracking = Wrong Way Forward for Climate
'High hopes that natural gas will help reduce global warming because of technical superiority to coal turn out to be misguided,' says study co-author
Oct 16, 2014
A global energy approach that adopts the kind of natural gas boom currently underway in the U.S. is "misguided" and a path towards further climate change, new research shows.
The finding, based on projections from five research groups from Germany, the U.S., Austria, Italy and Australia, was published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Natural gas--booming in the United as a result of fracking technology--has been touted as a "bridge fuel" and embraced by the Obama administration as part of his "all of his all of the above energy strategy." But the new analysis shows that it is not a viable path towards addressing climate change.
Though natural gas produces fewer CO2 emissions than coal, the researchers' projected scenarios of 2050 based on integrated energy-economy-climate systems models revealed that increased use of natural gas could actually lead to as much as ten percent higher CO2 emissions.
The problem, the researchers found, is that the boom would lead to lower costs, causing displacement not only of coal but also of renewable energy; further, the lower energy costs could lead to more overall energy use. Lastly, the methane--a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2--released from the production and distribution of natural gas would add to climate change.
"The high hopes that natural gas will help reduce global warming because of technical superiority to coal turn out to be misguided because market effects are dominating," explained co-author Nico Bauer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The main factor here is that an abundance of natural gas leads to a price drop and expansion of total primary energy supply."
Rather than shifting towards increased natural gas production, what is needed are effective climate policies, they found.
"Global deployment of advanced natural gas production technology could double or triple the global natural gas production by 2050, but greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow in the absence of climate policies that promote lower carbon energy sources," stated lead author Haewon McJeon of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Previous studies have also pointed to climate change worsening from natural gas as a result of its methane emissions and its displacement of renewable energy investments, and critics have pointed to the "insanity" of trying to solve a fossil fuel-created crisis with more fossil fuels.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A global energy approach that adopts the kind of natural gas boom currently underway in the U.S. is "misguided" and a path towards further climate change, new research shows.
The finding, based on projections from five research groups from Germany, the U.S., Austria, Italy and Australia, was published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Natural gas--booming in the United as a result of fracking technology--has been touted as a "bridge fuel" and embraced by the Obama administration as part of his "all of his all of the above energy strategy." But the new analysis shows that it is not a viable path towards addressing climate change.
Though natural gas produces fewer CO2 emissions than coal, the researchers' projected scenarios of 2050 based on integrated energy-economy-climate systems models revealed that increased use of natural gas could actually lead to as much as ten percent higher CO2 emissions.
The problem, the researchers found, is that the boom would lead to lower costs, causing displacement not only of coal but also of renewable energy; further, the lower energy costs could lead to more overall energy use. Lastly, the methane--a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2--released from the production and distribution of natural gas would add to climate change.
"The high hopes that natural gas will help reduce global warming because of technical superiority to coal turn out to be misguided because market effects are dominating," explained co-author Nico Bauer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The main factor here is that an abundance of natural gas leads to a price drop and expansion of total primary energy supply."
Rather than shifting towards increased natural gas production, what is needed are effective climate policies, they found.
"Global deployment of advanced natural gas production technology could double or triple the global natural gas production by 2050, but greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow in the absence of climate policies that promote lower carbon energy sources," stated lead author Haewon McJeon of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Previous studies have also pointed to climate change worsening from natural gas as a result of its methane emissions and its displacement of renewable energy investments, and critics have pointed to the "insanity" of trying to solve a fossil fuel-created crisis with more fossil fuels.
A global energy approach that adopts the kind of natural gas boom currently underway in the U.S. is "misguided" and a path towards further climate change, new research shows.
The finding, based on projections from five research groups from Germany, the U.S., Austria, Italy and Australia, was published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Natural gas--booming in the United as a result of fracking technology--has been touted as a "bridge fuel" and embraced by the Obama administration as part of his "all of his all of the above energy strategy." But the new analysis shows that it is not a viable path towards addressing climate change.
Though natural gas produces fewer CO2 emissions than coal, the researchers' projected scenarios of 2050 based on integrated energy-economy-climate systems models revealed that increased use of natural gas could actually lead to as much as ten percent higher CO2 emissions.
The problem, the researchers found, is that the boom would lead to lower costs, causing displacement not only of coal but also of renewable energy; further, the lower energy costs could lead to more overall energy use. Lastly, the methane--a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2--released from the production and distribution of natural gas would add to climate change.
"The high hopes that natural gas will help reduce global warming because of technical superiority to coal turn out to be misguided because market effects are dominating," explained co-author Nico Bauer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The main factor here is that an abundance of natural gas leads to a price drop and expansion of total primary energy supply."
Rather than shifting towards increased natural gas production, what is needed are effective climate policies, they found.
"Global deployment of advanced natural gas production technology could double or triple the global natural gas production by 2050, but greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow in the absence of climate policies that promote lower carbon energy sources," stated lead author Haewon McJeon of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Previous studies have also pointed to climate change worsening from natural gas as a result of its methane emissions and its displacement of renewable energy investments, and critics have pointed to the "insanity" of trying to solve a fossil fuel-created crisis with more fossil fuels.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.