Inside the Complicated Relationship Between Natural Gas and Climate Change

The abundant fossil fuel is helping reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but not enough to prevent a climate crisis.

A picture taken on December 10, 2012 in Rennes, western France shows a person lighting up a gas stove. The price of gas in France will increase of 2.4% on January 1, 2013, French Ecology minister announced on December 10, 2012.
National Journal
Amy Harder
Add to Briefcase
Amy Harder
Jan. 26, 2014, 10:05 a.m.

Con­ven­tion­al wis­dom tells us nat­ur­al gas is help­ing us com­bat glob­al warm­ing. Like most bits of con­ven­tion­al wis­dom, it’s not that simple.

First the afore­men­tioned wis­dom: Nat­ur­al gas is un­ques­tion­ably help­ing the United States re­duce its cli­mate foot­print. Our na­tion’s green­house-gas emis­sions have dropped to levels not seen since the 1990s, thanks in part to this clean­er-burn­ing fuel. Nat­ur­al gas pro­duces half the car­bon emis­sions of coal and about a third few­er than oil. This is why every­one in the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, in­clud­ing the pres­id­ent him­self, can’t talk enough about the cli­mate be­ne­fits of nat­ur­al gas.

Three dis­par­ate factors make the re­la­tion­ship between nat­ur­al gas and cli­mate change not so un­equi­voc­ally simple and good. Con­cerns about meth­ane emis­sions per­sist, but not­with­stand­ing that chal­lenge, two great­er prob­lems loom: First, shift­ing sig­ni­fic­antly away from coal to nat­ur­al gas doesn’t get the plan­et any­where close to the car­bon-re­duc­tion levels sci­ent­ists say we must reach. And second, while the nat­ur­al-gas boom is great for the eco­nomy and the im­me­di­ate re­duc­tion of green­house-gas emis­sions, it has de­flated the polit­ic­al ur­gency to cut fossil-fuel de­pend­ence, which was more com­pel­ling when we thought our re­sources of oil and nat­ur­al gas were scarce. We have a great prob­lem of en­ergy abund­ance.

Let’s first tackle the most ex­pli­cit prob­lem: emis­sions of meth­ane, which is the primary com­pon­ent of nat­ur­al gas and is a green­house gas 20 times more po­tent than car­bon di­ox­ide.

Nu­mer­ous aca­dem­ic stud­ies have tried to de­term­ine how much meth­ane is ac­tu­ally es­cap­ing throughout the life cycle of nat­ur­al gas, in­clud­ing dur­ing pro­duc­tion and trans­mis­sion of the fuel. Re­gard­less of the res­ults (and many more stud­ies are in the works) this con­cern has got­ten the at­ten­tion of Pres­id­ent Obama. In his cli­mate agenda an­nounced last sum­mer, he ordered his ad­min­is­tra­tion to crack down on meth­ane emis­sions.

“If it’s not done cor­rectly, the meth­ane emis­sions are pro­found,” Obama said in an in­ter­view with The New York­er pub­lished last week. “But, if we can get that right, then for us to see nat­ur­al gas sup­plant coal around the world the same way it’s hap­pen­ing here in the United States, that’s a net plus.”

That brings us to the second prob­lem: Yes, swap­ping out coal for nat­ur­al gas does re­duce car­bon emis­sions ini­tially, but in fact it ul­ti­mately doesn’t help the plan­et avoid a rise of 2 de­grees Celsi­us over the com­ing dec­ades, the lim­it sci­ent­ists around the world say we must not ex­ceed in or­der to pre­vent the worst im­pacts of glob­al warm­ing. In 2011, the In­ter­na­tion­al En­ergy Agency re­leased a World En­ergy Out­look re­port de­scrib­ing “a golden age of gas” and pre­dict­ing that gas pro­duc­tion would rise by 50 per­cent over the next 25 years.

“An in­creased share of nat­ur­al gas in the glob­al en­ergy mix alone will not put the world on a car­bon emis­sions path con­sist­ent with an av­er­age glob­al tem­per­at­ure rise of no more than 2 [de­grees Celsi­us],” the re­port states. “Nat­ur­al gas dis­places coal and to a less­er ex­tent oil, driv­ing down emis­sions, but it also dis­places some nuc­le­ar power, push­ing up emis­sions. This puts emis­sions on a long-term tra­ject­ory con­sist­ent with sta­bil­iz­ing the con­cen­tra­tion of green­house gases in the at­mo­sphere at around 650 parts per mil­lion CO2 equi­val­ent, sug­gest­ing a long-term tem­per­at­ure rise of over 3.5 [de­grees Celsi­us].”

The au­thor of that re­port, IEA’s chief eco­nom­ist Fatih Bir­ol, put it more suc­cinctly in an art­icle in Sci­entif­ic Amer­ic­an shortly after the re­port was re­leased.

“We are not say­ing that it will be a golden age for hu­man­ity — we are say­ing it will be a golden age for gas,” Bir­ol said. It drives home the ba­sic no­tion that while nat­ur­al gas emits half as much car­bon as coal, it still pro­duces twice as much as al­tern­at­ive fuel sources.

“It’s a two-edge sword,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, pres­id­ent of the con­ser­vat­ive think tank Amer­ic­an Ac­tion For­um and former ad­viser to Sen. John Mc­Cain, R-Ar­iz. “Nat­ur­al gas is a clean­er source that’s also quite cheap and you can move people there eas­ily. But, it also gets in the way of car­bon [re­duc­tions] be­cause it’s a car­bon re­source. It’s like com­ing up with clean­er ci­gar­ettes.”

In a rar­ity, Holtz-Eakin used the same ana­logy as Mi­chael Brune, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Si­erra Club, one of the most out­spoken en­vir­on­ment­al groups op­posed to any in­creased nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion. Go­ing from coal to nat­ur­al gas is like switch­ing from “Marl­boros to Camels,” Brune said.

Now to the third prob­lem: the lack of polit­ic­al ur­gency. In the era of en­ergy scarcity we were in up un­til about sev­en years ago, nat­ur­al gas was con­sidered a lo­gic­al bridge to re­new­able en­ergy since it’s clean­er-burn­ing and provides re­li­able backup power for in­ter­mit­tent wind and sol­ar en­ergy. But now, seem­ingly overnight, we find ourselves on a bridge sup­ply of nat­ur­al gas that can go on for much longer than we all thought. That’s got en­vir­on­ment­al­ists more wor­ried than ever, but the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion and many politi­cians are not. In fact, they’re pretty happy about all this oil and nat­ur­al gas, the jobs that are com­ing along with it, and the cheap­er en­ergy costs.

“What has happened more re­cently is there is not such the ur­gency on the cli­mate-change side. And there is this eu­phor­ia — jus­ti­fi­able eu­phor­ia — in our abil­ity to pro­duce more oil and gas,” said former Sen. Byron Dor­gan, D-N.D., whose home state is at the fore­front of Amer­ica’s boom­ing oil and gas in­dustry. “It per­suades some people to be­lieve: ‘OK, we’re pro­du­cing more and us­ing less, our im­ports are down, so game, set, match, it’s over. ‘ “

Dor­gan, who now co­chairs the Bi­par­tis­an Policy Cen­ter’s En­ergy Pro­ject, con­tin­ued: “I worry a little bit that there is this no­tion, ‘Boy, we’re just awash in oil and gas so that’s it. We don’t need to do any­thing more.’ That’s ex­actly the wrong thing.”

With­in the en­vir­on­ment­al com­munity, the ur­gency is grow­ing. The Si­erra Club came out with its Bey­ond Nat­ur­al Gas cam­paign in 2012, which is fight­ing against in­creased use of gas, in­clud­ing new gas-fired power plants, and ex­port ter­min­als. The En­vir­on­ment­al De­fense Fund, which works ex­tens­ively with en­ergy com­pan­ies to help en­sure fossil-fuel pro­duc­tion is done safely and with the few­est meth­ane emis­sions pos­sible, launched a new ini­ti­at­ive last sum­mer called Smart Power that pro­motes re­new­able en­ergy above all fossil fuels, in­clud­ing nat­ur­al gas.

“There is an op­por­tun­ity to have nat­ur­al gas re­place more coal,” EDF Pres­id­ent Fred Krupp said. “But, the bot­tom line is we have to ac­cel­er­ate to clean, smart power as fast as pos­sible to avoid un­ne­ces­sary shifts to nat­ur­al gas, and that’s why EDF has launched this Smart Power pro­gram to work in the states.”

So now that we’ve run down why nat­ur­al gas isn’t quite as good for glob­al warm­ing as we thought, let’s real­ize the real­ity we live in. Right now, re­new­ables ac­count for about 12 per­cent of our na­tion’s elec­tri­city, with wind and sol­ar mak­ing up 28 per­cent and 1 per­cent, re­spect­ively, of that 12 per­cent. By 2040, the En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion pre­dicts that the 12 per­cent will rise to 16 per­cent, with fossil fuels still ac­count­ing for the ma­jor­ity of our elec­tri­city. On a glob­al scale, re­new­ables ac­coun­ted for 20 per­cent in 2011, and the In­ter­na­tion­al En­ergy Agency pre­dicts that will rise to 31 per­cent by 2035. Their share bal­loons, but fossil fuels re­main dom­in­ant. And, the be­ne­fits of the nat­ur­al gas (and oil) boom, such as bring­ing eco­nom­ic growth, jobs and geo­pol­it­ic­al lever­age to the United States and oth­er coun­tries, are sig­ni­fic­ant.

“I don’t want to min­im­ize the need to worry about the en­vir­on­ment­al im­pacts,” said Marty Durbin, pres­id­ent and CEO of Amer­ica’s Nat­ur­al Gas Al­li­ance, the trade group rep­res­ent­ing nat­ur­al-gas pro­du­cers. “To simply say, well, here’s our goal on cli­mate, and not bring in­to ac­count the needs of the eco­nomy, not just here but around the world, you’re leav­ing out such a huge chunk of the equa­tion, it’s just not real­ist­ic.”

Durbin sounds a bit like Obama in his com­ments to The New York­er, when he said it wasn’t “feas­ible” to think emer­ging eco­nom­ies like China and In­dia can cut their car­bon emis­sions sig­ni­fic­antly and quickly.

Even if glob­al warm­ing re­quires a swift re­sponse, our real­ity is stub­bornly slow. And in this scen­ario, nat­ur­al gas is a great op­tion on the table.

“En­ergy policy is com­plex, pre­dic­ated upon tril­lions of dol­lars of in­fra­struc­ture and in­vest­ment,” said Jason Gru­met, pres­id­ent of the Bi­par­tis­an Policy Cen­ter and a former ad­viser to Obama. “It moves by evol­u­tion, not by re­volu­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
Bill Murray Crashes White House Briefing Room
5 hours ago

In town to receive the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center, Bill Murray casually strolled into the White House Briefing Room this afternoon. A spokesman said he was at the executive mansion for a chat with President Obama, his fellow Chicagoan.

CFPB Decision May Reverberate to Other Agencies
8 hours ago

"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
8 hours ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Twitter Bots Dominated First Debate
9 hours ago

Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.

Center for Public Integrity to Spin Off Journalism Arm
9 hours ago

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.