There Is No ‘Right Way’ to Develop Shale Gas

by Jordan Schneider

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp recently published a piece titled “The Right Way to Develop Shale Gas” on the opinion page of The New York Times. In it, they bemoan the fact that “fracking” for natural gas has become such a politically divisive issue, and offer what they call a “reality check” to both sides of the debate.

Oil and gas companies and regulators, they say, must recognize and address the very real problems of localized air and water pollution associated with fracking operations, as well as the fugitive emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas dozens of times more potent that carbon dioxide. On the other hand, they urge opponents of fracking tod recognize the environmental benefits of natural gas, which produces about half as much emissions as coal when combusted.

Some environmentalists embrace natural gas as a “clean” energy source precisely because it emits less CO2 and fewer other air pollutants than coal. The Obama Administration has voiced strong support of shale gas as part of its “all of the above” energy policy and as a “bridge fuel” to a cleaner electricity sector.

We’ve documented in several reports (see here, here and here) the many negative impacts of fracking on the environment and communities. But even if Krupp, Bloomberg and Obama are correct that fracking is a technique that can be made safe and environmentally responsible – all evidence to date to the contrary – where does the “bridge” of increased reliance on shale gas lead to?

Increasing our use of shale gas will require the investment of billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure — pipelines, compressor stations, power plants, etc. Once those investments are made, leaving behind infrastructure will last for decades, what are the chances that they will be abandoned?  If there really is a century’s worth of cheap shale gas to burn beneath our feet (although recent evidence suggests there is not), who will turn off the spigot in time to reach the emission reductions necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming? As it is, our clean energy sector is under constant attack by the oil and gas industries and in many places receives only minimal policy support. What will happen if we take our eye off the ball of developing truly clean energy sources in order to facilitate growing reliance on shale gas?

It’s true that switching from coal to natural gas in our electricity sector has helped reduce global warming emissions (though, with recent revelations about methane emissions from gas fields, the benefit may be minimal or non-existent). But we are once again dangerously close to developing long-term dependence on yet another fossil fuel. We’ve learned from our nation’s overreliance on cars and, by extension, oil, that path dependence is a powerful enemy in achieving necessary changes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report earlier this month issued dire warnings about the catastrophic climate change impacts likely to befall the planet without a dramatic and immediate reduction in worldwide global warming pollution. A vision of the future in which the United States and other industrialized countries cut global warming pollution by 80 percent or more in the coming decades – the reductions science tells us are necessary to prevent the worst impact of global warming – is fundamentally inconsistent with a future in which the United States expands its dependence on natural gas.

If we are to continue making meaningful progress in cutting global warming pollution, we must stop relying on 20th century fuels to power our economy. The time has come to put America’s full efforts into developing the truly clean energy sources that will power our economy in the 21st century: energy efficiency and renewable energy.