The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
By ANN PINCA
The optimistic anticipation of President Obama's climate change address this week took a different course when his talk turned to natural gas, leaving one with that bad feeling in the pit of your stomach that something has gone terribly wrong. In light of scientific reports demonstrating the real threat of methane to climate change, how can our President possibly speak about the serious threat of climate change yet at the same time support the full-scale development of natural gas?
The Good
The fact that climate change is finally being addressed is a great step forward. Ignored or denied in the past, President Obama has at least formally brought the subject to the table. His plans to cut carbon pollution, protect our country from the impacts of climate change, and to "lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate" are admirable and necessary. His dismissal of the "tired excuses for inaction" and his subsequent expression of faith in American ingenuity to work through the challenges ahead offer promise for the future.
|
IMAGE: ANN PINCA
PPL Montour
coal-burning power plant, Washingtonville, PA
|
The possible denial of the Keystone XL pipeline that supports the Alberta tar sands development is also good news. As
The Bad
Champagne glasses had to be clinking in many board rooms when natural gas operators heard Obama's embrace of "cleaner-burning natural gas" as a means to effect climate change. Despite his line that "we can't just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face," Obama proceeded to cite those all-too-familiar industry mantras of job creation and cheap heating and electricity rates for Americans as reasons to "strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer."
Our President has apparently either missed the lessons on methane impacts on climate change or has decided to ignore them. Recently,
researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reconfirmed previous findings of methane leakage from natural gas fields in Utah and Colorado - at rates nearly double the loss rates estimated from industry data. NOAA's leakage rates are in line with the 2011 report by scientists Howarth, Santoro, and Ingraffea that details the significant impacts of methane from shale gas extraction, especially within a 20-year window.
Just this month, the International Energy Agency released a report that calls for a world-wide reduction of expected methane emissions of the upstream oil and gas industry by almost one half by 2020. Additionally, a military report cited the expansion of North American oil and gas production as the means to energy independence "misguided," saying that the real answer to energy security, which includes curbing climate change, is through renewable fuels and energy efficiency.
In view of current sentiment in Congress, it seems unlikely that the strict regulation and enforcement Obama proposes to enact during the production and distribution of natural gas are possible. If they are miraculously put in place and adhered to, the sure-to-be-increased production costs will cause higher prices for that cheap and abundant clean-burning natural gas. If increased LNG exports are allowed, which seems very likely when speaking of strengthening our position as a top producer of natural gas, consumer prices - and impacts - will increase, too.
|
IMAGE: ANN PINCA
PPL Ironwood natural gas power plant, Lebanon, PA
|
The Ugly
President Obama's plans to
support natural gas development
will subject untold numbers of
Americans living near drilling
areas to suffer from health,
economic, and social impacts
and will release untold acres
of public lands to degradation.
With the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA)
unexpected exit from the
Pavillion, Wyoming, water
pollution problem and the EPA
study on groundwater impacts not expected to be completed until 2016, one has to wonder if Obama truly has the best interest of his constituents in mind.
Shortly after the President's address, several major environmental groups sent out alerts to their members. They asked members to send thanks to the President with their agreements of support for his climate change efforts, without any mention of the obvious problems that come along with his support of natural gas expansion. Since then, this writer knows of only one group, Earthworks, whose initial statement questioned the problems of the natural gas issue. Other groups have since back-pedaled a bit with follow-up messages on natural gas. Disillusionment has now replaced the respect members formerly held for those environmental groups that didn't seem to see expanded natural gas development as a problem.
The Challenge
The President's address ended with a call to American citizens to "stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands." We must do that for climate change, but now more than ever we must do that for the impacts of shale gas exploitation. The President's embrace of the natural gas industry may have made this more difficult, but we will follow his instructions:
"Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future."
We can do that, but we must first do it by speaking up to our President about the real impacts of shale gas development not just on our climate, but on American citizens as well.
|