The Dash for Gas and Carbon Targets
Groundwater contamination; earthquakes; chemical spills; visual spoiling of the landscape; noise pollution—these are some of the common environmental concerns we hear most about shale gas. As big a concern as these local issues are, Tony Bosworth said today, they pale in comparison to the issues surrounding shale gas and climate change.
Speaking at the 2012 SMI Shale Gas Environmental Summit, Mr. Bosworth, a climate and energy campaigner for environment charity Friends of the Earth, said the benefits to gas paled in comparison to its effect on the environment.
“We’ve got to be reducing demand and maximising energy efficiency,” he said. “This is, in a way, the Cinderella part of the energy debate but it’s absolutely vital. We’ve got to be electrifying demand—fast—where this is possible. We’ve got to be decarbonising the electricity supply.”
For Friends of the Earth, the plan for decarbonisation does not feature shale strongly; for that matter, any gas and fossil fuel is on the outs.
“Fossil fuels, including gas, have to have a much smaller role if we want to meet our climate change targets. There’s got to be no second dash for gas.”
A greater focus on gas, particularly in light of a drive towards shale gas, wouldn’t just impede on emission targets and the environment in the future; it was affecting the UK and the rest of the world right now, Mr. Bosworth said.
“Climate change is not something that’s remote from us—either in time or in distance. Climate change is happening and it’s happening now.”
While the gas and other fossil fuel industries were keen to downplay the effects of shale and other gases on the environment, Mr. Bosworth treated such reassurances sceptically. The issues surrounding shale were valid ones, he countered, and were still present even if they were denied.
“There are real, local concerns about the environmental impact of shale gas and fracking,” he said. “The industry says that there aren’t but the industry said there was no link between smoking and health. The industry said that CFCs didn’t affect the ozone layer. The industry has a bad track record on issues like this.
Pointing to the severe weather conditions of the past few years, Mr. Bosworth said the impact on the environment was undeniable.
“We’ve seen floods and record hot summers in Europe. We’ve seen the hottest summer in Russia in centuries. We’ve seen the worst flooding—ever—in Pakistan. We’re already committed to a fair degree of climate change. But if we want to avoid the worst impact, we’ve got to take some tough action.”
While Friends of the Earth could be seen as taking a hard-line on fossil fuels, this is because time is of the essence for climate change, Mr. Bosworth said. While he did not deny that gas could have a use as a “bridging fuel” while the switch to renewables was made, by 2030, the charity’s plan for energy hoped to see renewables account for 75 per cent of electricity use, gas at 10 percent and a small amount to be made up of nuclear and other sources.
The move to renewables was essential if a rise in temperature was to be avoided; this couldn’t be met if the gas market faced a fresh boom of production.
“What we need to be doing is keeping temperatures below levels which are going to trigger an abrupt climate change,” Mr. Bosworth explained. “A while back it was thought that the level was going to be about two degrees; that’s what we needed to keep temperature rises below. But since then, science has moved on. What people are talking about now is we need to keep temperature rises below one-and-a-half degrees. That’s the position of over 100 developing countries.”
Though the developed world, particularly at the UN Durban Climate Change Conference (2011) was more accepting of a two-degree temperature increase, the developing world was anxious to keep it at a lower rate. However, despite the conversation at the Durban conference, little change was made.
“Are we on course? You won’t be surprised to hear, no, we’re not. The climate change talks in Durban were a failure. Developed countries put forth a lot of rhetoric but very little action because no commitment to cuts and indeed they said, ‘We’re going to have a new process.’ So what this means is that we’re quite likely to see emissions rise till 2020.”
A “gas dash” could have dire consequences for the one-and-a-half degree temperature target, he said. Even the more conservative two-degree change would not and could not be met.
“It’s interesting to note that the IEA’s ‘Golden Age of Gas’ report talks about their ‘golden age’ scenario leading to a rise of over three degrees. That’ll leave us with temperature which we haven’t seen on earth for about three million years. “
For now, at least, climate change targets were not on target—not by a long shot, Mr. Bosworth said. While the UK was planning to cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, a worldwide change is needed to reach worldwide targets. This, according to Friends of the Earth, means actively targeting that one-and-a-half degree change, and not the two-degree temperature change. To plan for a two-degree change is a guarantee not to meet these targets.
“It’s the toss of a coin,” Mr. Bosworth said. “It’s a lot worse odds than Russian roulette. What I think we’ve got to do is to aim to make two degrees unlikely and give ourselves a fair chance to keep temperature rises below one-and-a-half degrees. We’ve done some modelling and we’ve worked out that this means we have to come up with a global carbon budget of 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalent between 2010 and 2050. To put that number into some sort of context, we emitted 400 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in the first decade of this century.”
While Friends of the Earth wished to see gas phased out, in addition to other fossil fuels, it had considered the use of technologies to reduce the effect of the emissions of electricity from those sources; this, however, could not be relied on to act as a salve.
“We’re going to need some carbon capture and storage, where possible, for the fossil fuel electricity generation that’s left. But carbon capture storage is yet unproven. There are concerns about whether the storage is secure and is it going to perpetuate fossil fuel extraction. We’re going to need carbon capture storage in the short to medium term; we need to have it in the mix. At the end, we might need some negative emissions technology. We’d rather not have them but things like air capture of carbon might be needed if we want to meet these targets.”
The arguments for gas, particularly shale which is currently enjoying a revival, didn’t hold up to scrutiny, the campaigner said. While gas is often portrayed as economically favourable to other energy sources, a closer look at electricity prices did not bear this out. In fact, Mr. Bosworth said, the average consumer did not feel the benefits of increased gas availability; neither did the average worker.
“We risk a continuing exposure to price rises and price volatility. Electricity bills for households in Britain have risen by 60 per cent between 2004 and 2010 and that is largely down to rises in the price that electricity producers pay for gas,” he said.
“If we carry on being dependent on gas, we carry on being exposed to price rises and price volatility in the future. We’re going to have energy security concerns if we carry on depending on gas and we’re going to have slower dependence on renewables and lower job creation. Over the last couple of years, the renewables industry has grown eight times faster than the economy as a whole. It could be supporting 400,000 jobs by 2020.”
Shale gas couldn’t wish to come close to that kind of job creation, Mr. Bosworth told the conference-goers. Besides that, the resource was not as attractive as conventional gases, nor was it any better value.
“The prospects of having huge potential amounts of gas underneath the UK is encouraging the second dash for gas. There’s good evidence that shale gas is dirtier than conventional gas. The jury’s out but shale gas might be as dirty as coal. Shale gas is not cheaper; it’s not going to lead to cheaper energy prices—that’s what Deutsche Bank said.”
The focus on local employment and indigenous industry was misleading, he said. Those in favour of its use and excavation saw it as an unrealistic boon to energy security, one that would be borne out in reality.
“Some people think that because shale gas is going to be produced locally, it’s somehow going to be cheaper. Surely if that was the case, Aberdeen (Scotland/UK North Sea—one of the biggest oil and gas producers in the UK) would have the cheapest petrol in the UK? Shale gas is not a magic bullet for cutting household energy bills. It’s not going to anything to keep us out of the arm-lock of the big six. I don’t think it’s going to do much to increase energy security.”
All of these factors were a distraction to the main issue, Mr. Bosworth said, the current and immediate effect shale and other gases were having on the environment. While the debate was ongoing, precious time was being wasted to the detriment of the environment.
“We’ve got to act quick,” he told the room. “We’ve got to keep to that budget if we want to avoid the worst impact of tackling climate change—we can’t afford to delay action any further. “