President Obama favors a "clean energy standard" - a requirement that energy be obtained from certain "clean" sources including natural gas, nuclear power, and the chimera of clean coal. Some environmentalists who prefer a renewable energy standard (solar, wind, and the like) doubt whether a CES can decrease carbon emissions and strengthen reliance on domestic fuel, two oft-cited goals of a CES.
Now, two reports show that natural gas is neither. It's worse for the climate than coal. And domestic American natural gas is being acquired by foreign companies for their use.
Now is the time to say: Stop. We're going about it all wrong.
The Hill obtained a pre-publication copy of a Cornell report finding that natural gas from fracking is worse than coal on climate because fracking produces potent methane emissions. Over the short term, methane is far more powerful than carbon dioxide; after 20 years, it decays into carbon dioxide.
the Cornell study argues that methane emissions from these shale gas projects mean that shale gas ultimately brings climate consequences comparable to coal over a century, and worse than coal over two decades.
That’s because the potent methane emissions in the production process more than compensate for the fact that burning natural gas for power brings far fewer carbon dioxide emissions that burning coal. The study also notes that, depending on the estimates used, conventionally produced gas may add more to climate change than coal over the 20-year horizon.
Natural gas enjoys wide political support because its emissions are half that of coal when burned. However, this startling new report upends that assumption and thus may shatter the energy policy that Obama has developed. Alexis Madrigal, writing in the Atlantic, warns that the Washington energy consensus could be shattered by shale gas' carbon footprint.
Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review queried the claim that natural gas is a domestically made product that helps America wean its addiction to foreign oil: Marcellus shale gas may head overseas. Foreign companies are investing heavily in Marcellus Shale, other shale-bearing lands, and liquefied natural gas ports to ship the gas overseas. Chinese investors, British Petroleum, and the governments of South Korea and India are all involved. Much of the salesmanship around natural gas emphasizes that its use will wean America off foreign oil. However, it's hard to see how there will be enough gas to meet both an increased domestic demand and a newly created foreign demand, and it's equally hard to see foreign investors permitting the product to be sold cheaply in America. Rather, increasing demand usually leads to tighter supplies and higher prices.
Small wonder that the Pickens Plan 2.0 is being questioned: Good for the U.S., or just good for T. Boone? A Pickens bill to give tax credits for moving 18 wheeler trucks on to natural gas has 76 cosponsors in the House, where Pickens expects it to pass with over 300 votes. However, the plan will increase dependence on fracked natural gas, with its potent methane emissions and other environmental hazards.
Fortunately, there's a better plan. Rather than a "clean energy standard" relying on natural gas, nuclear power, and "clean" coal, the White House should support the renewable energy standard bill, S. 741, introduced last week by Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Tom Udall (D-NM). That bill would require utilities to get 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. In light of the game-changing Cornell study, that bill proposes the only meaningful energy standard.