In recent months fracking has received attention as an apparent means through which the UK could reduce carbon emissions in an effort to combat climate change. Terry Hathaway takes issue with these claims, arguing that they rest on a highly select focus on the available data, with the United States being far from the exemplar that advocates of fracking have made it out to be.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing as it is properly known, is a way of producing natural gas that is trapped in underground shale formations. It has been accused of having a much higher carbon cost than conventional methods of gas extraction, of causing earthquakes and of contaminating local water tables. Opposition to fracking has grown as these claims have received high profile coverage. In fact, Promised Land, a movie about the impact of fracking on local US farming communities, is coming out in the UK soon.
Yet recent media reports have sought to paint shale gas as one of the main ways in which the US has, and the UK could, reduce their carbon emissions in an effort to combat climate change. The New York Times, for instance, ran with a headline of “Shale Gas to the Climate Rescue”. Likewise, a Guardian Comment Is Free blog post called fracking “the monster we greens must embrace”. It is an argument that is catching on, with Poland claiming that its desire to exploit its shale deposits is part of a climate strategy.
The main supporting evidence in the fracking-as-green argument has been figures released by Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Administration. These figures show natural gas having displaced coal in the US electricity generation market. The argument goes that the shale gas boom reduced the price of natural gas by 25%, which meant that cheaper natural gas displaced coal in US energy generation thereby decreasing the emissions caused in the production of electricity.
This part of the story is true, but it is highly selective in its focus. In actual fact, it is nothing more than poor carbon accounting that allows this argument to be made. What is missing from the story is that losing their position in the US market has not led US coal producers to significantly reduce the production of coal. Instead of being used in America, exports of coal have boomed and other countries – most notably the UK – are now gobbling up the excess American coal, as the graph below shows.
While Europe has been a big market for American coal so far, developing countries are being incentivised by the reduced price of US coal to use more of it. In fact, India, with its 1.25 billion people, is a rapidly growing market for coal. So, while shale gas may have improved the US record on CO2 emissions, it has worsened the record elsewhere and has the potential to worsen it further.
Additionally, by focusing only on CO2 emissions in the production of electricity the carbon cost of fracking – the production of shale gas – is missed. Instead, the carbon accounting displayed in this argument is just a basic comparison of the CO2 produced when natural gas or coal combusts. In the comparison natural gas obviously wins, but fracked natural gas may not. That, of course, is also not even saying anything about earthquakes and water contamination, which clearly shouldn’t be excluded from an environmental debate.
The two oversights in the fracking argument allow shale gas to be painted green, when in reality it is anything but. Similar attempts have been made to paint the Canadian tar sands green, by the Canadian government no less. These are arguments that must be exposed for what they are: greenwashing. It seems obvious to say so, but the world’s production of carbon will not be reduced through the greater use of fossil fuels, nor will it be reduced through policies that focus only on local emissions and omit the impact of the policy on global emissions.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
Terry Hathaway is a doctoral researcher in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds. His thesis is an investigation of the role of business in US oil-dependency policy making.
Great article Terry and spot on.
I would like to know more about the economics surrounding this fracking frenzy that was born in USA we are witnessing. I mean, it would be good to have someone from an economics background and with an interest in the fossil fuel industry. We all know that the industry produces sick amounts of profit and with that comes power and manipulation. It is pretty safe to say that the fossil fuel industry and global political leaders work hand in hand. They are part of an elite gang. Two elite gangs in fact. OECD countries in competition with OPEC countries. Both seeking global domination. We also all know how the USA is obsessed with fossil fuels and maintaining It`s status as a `superpower`. So has this highly risky and controversial shale gas frenzy been introduced and pushed through at super high speed, bypassing environmental laws and adequate regulation, purely to give USA a much needed boost during this severe dip in growth?? Is it all about attracting foreign investors to park their money in American banks?
http://business.time.com/2013/03/20/can-the-u-s-dollar-become-almighty-once-again/
In my opinion, it`s all about geopolitical one-upmanship between countries, the leaders who rule those countries and the mega rich corporate elite who pull their strings. It`s not difficult to find information about the tensions and muscle flexing between countries around the world and that the reason for this is down to who has the rights to oil and gas assets. Because, as I said, everyone knows how much profit, and power that comes with it, can be gained from fossil fuels. But finding people to write such articles is proving hard to come by.
You quite rightly mentioned CO2 emissions being decreased in the US but those emissions being exported elsewhere. What is also true, and often not taken into account, is the amount of CH4 emissions that has increased in USA as a result of increased gas extraction and transportation. CH4 can be as high as 100 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. So in effect, the USA is likely contributing even MORE to climate change while boasting reductions in CO2.
But It`s not just about the CO2 or CH4 levels and climate change. These emissions KILL. This is something that MUST not be forgotten in articles such as yours. In India alone coal power plants kill 120,000 people a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace
As you rightly pointed out, the UK is burning MORE coal and is something we should be VERY worried about. It`s not just about our Government sticking to It`s promises to cut emissions, It`s about the health and well being of the British public.
It`s also interesting that cheaper coal has been used to produce the electricity, yet the consumer has had to suffer increases in their energy bills. Probably as a result of manipulation by the major players.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/libor-like-manipulation-gas-markets
You end your article with
“but the world’s production of carbon will not be reduced through the greater use of fossil fuels, nor will it be reduced through policies that focus only on local emissions and omit the impact of the policy on global emissions”
I would like to end with, We will not end millions of needles deaths and catastrophic irreversible destruction to our life support systems by focussing our attention on whether climate change is real or not, nor by worrying about Government policies on “emissions”. We need to expose the fossil fuel industry “gangs” for what they really are while at the same time promoting the use of cleaner, safer and sustainable energy sources.
If solar cells were arranged over just one percent of the planet’s total surface, the world could generate all the electricity it needs. No other form of power generation is as clean, environmentally-friendly and universally applicable as solar power.
According to three landmark studies published by Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University and Dr. Mark Delucchi of the University of California at Davis we can convert the world’s energy supply to renewable sources by 2030 using existing technology without fossil fuel or nuclear energy.
The first one was published in the Nov. 2009 issue of Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
And the other two were published in the March 2011 issue of Energy Policy:
PART 1
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
PART 2
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf
As you begin to understand and accept the possibilities, then try to define extreme energy as a process and not as a category,
http://frack-off.org.uk/defining-extreme-energy-a-process-not-a-category/