David Suzuki: Natural gas is not a solution for climate change

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Can a fossil fuel help us avoid the harmful effects of other fossil fuels? It’s a question that’s come up lately as natural gas is eyed as a cleaner alternative to oil and coal.

      Burning coal and oil causes pollution and emits greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Exploring and drilling for oil and mining coal also come with numerous environmental impacts—especially as easily accessible oil runs out and we have to rely on deep-water drilling and oil sands. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal, and it emits less carbon dioxide for the amount of energy it produces. This has led industry and governments to argue for an increase in natural gas production.

      Canada is the world’s third largest producer of natural gas, behind Russia and the United States. Although overall production has been declining here, new sources and methods for exploiting “unconventional” natural gas reserves, such as shale gas, have led industry and government officials to argue that gas could play a role as a “bridging” fuel to kick-start near-term reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.

      It’s not that simple, though, especially when we consider the impacts of unconventional natural gas, along with extraction methods such as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”. A report by the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute, “Is natural gas a climate change solution for Canada?” examines the key issues around natural gas and reaches surprising conclusions.

      Extracting gas from shale deposits, for example, requires up to 100 times the number of well pads to get the same amount of gas as conventional sources. Imagine the disruption in farm or cottage country of one well pad (comprising multiple wells) roughly every 2.5 square kilometres. Each well pad occupies an area of about one hectare, and also requires access roads and pipeline infrastructure.

      The method known as fracking has also been in the news a lot. Fracking has been used to extract gas since the late 1940s, although producers only began combining it with horizontal drilling to exploit unconventional gas resources in the past decade. With this process, water, sand, and chemicals are pumped at high pressure into rock formations deep in the Earth to fracture the rock, allowing the gas to escape and flow into the wells.

      Fracking requires enormous amounts of water and uses chemicals that can be toxic. Companies are not required to disclose the chemicals they use for fracking in Canada and some parts of the U.S. The process can also release methane, a greenhouse gas more powerful than carbon dioxide, into the air.

      The non-climate environmental impacts of gas extraction alone are enough to give us pause. But the natural gas study also concludes that it is not a good way to fight climate change.

      To begin, although it is cleaner than oil and coal, burning natural gas still produces greenhouse gas emissions, as does the industrial activity required to get it out of the ground. Greater investments in natural gas development may also slow investment in renewable energy. Would owners of gas-fired power plants built in the next few years willingly cease to operate them—or accept the costs of capturing and storing carbon emissions—as the push for deeper greenhouse gas reductions increases?

      The real solutions to climate change lie with conservation and renewable energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal power.

      But because natural gas will be with us for the foreseeable future, we must do all we can to clean up practices associated with it as well. The report recommends requiring industry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and calls for better regulation and monitoring. Right now, natural gas is exempt from normal provincial environmental assessment processes. Clearly, that must change.

      It’s also time for our federal government to take climate change seriously and to develop realistic plans to reduce emissions. That includes implementing an economy-wide price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or both, covering as many sources as possible. Although pricing emissions might initially prompt extra gas use in some parts of the economy, models show that will be outweighed by other changes like energy efficiency.

      Climate change is a serious problem. Getting off fossil fuels is the best solution.

      Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation editorial and communications specialist Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

      Comments

      36 Comments

      Niclas Alsop

      Jul 19, 2011 at 9:23pm

      Another Excellent article by our ageless crusader!

      bouan

      Jul 19, 2011 at 10:37pm

      We all exhale CO2. Maybe we just have too many people on the planet.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Robert Kroeker

      Jul 20, 2011 at 8:56am

      This may be true, but I get very tired of hearing this guy rant. He is a celebrity spokesperson, not an expert. He is speaking as a broadcaster, not a scientist. If he expects us to respect his opinion because of his Ph. D., he is committing academic fraud for the reason that his earned credential is not in a relevant field, i.e. Zoology not climate change or resource management. It is true that he was talking of climate change 25 years ago, but back then he was predicting another ice age.
      If Dr. Suzuki was willing to give up his 80 acre private estate on Saltspring Island, his homes in 2 major Canadian cities, and his jet commutes back and forth I might take him a little more seriously. Purchasing carbon credits doesn't give you and the wealthy elite the right to pollute as much as you like, David.

      0 0Rating: 0

      NoLeftNutter

      Jul 20, 2011 at 9:01am

      More ghost written, scare mongering from the fruit fly eco-whore. And, scare mongering has been good for business. Annual DSF donations have almost doubled since 2006 - more houses and plane trips for DS, all in the name of saving the planet.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Iggy

      Jul 20, 2011 at 11:10am

      Boan,
      no offence, but that overpopulation apporach is conflictive, cuze we would need to make a desision of who must disembark the globe first, you or the rest... that's akind of right theory to justify atrocities in our globe... jsut a thought...

      0 0Rating: 0

      Fan'o Truth

      Jul 20, 2011 at 1:08pm

      If natural gas is substituted for gasoline and deisel in vehicle or other transport it would seem to me that there's likely a significant gain in terms of lower GHGs and other pollutants. The renewables in the article (solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) are all electrical generation methods, which is not as adaptable to transportation where significant power is needed. BC tried an electrified rail line at Tumbler Ridge, and gave it up.

      0 0Rating: 0

      NoRightWingNeoConSheep

      Jul 20, 2011 at 1:44pm

      Another logical & Scientific basis to lower GHG emissions.

      But Climate change deniers & the Far Right Wing Neo-Cons will never accept nor change the current Big Oil / Corporate Welfare model until Oil literally runs out.

      By which time our Oceans will have turned to Carbonic Acid thus destroying all life on the planet.

      The only hope both Environmentally & Economically is for a complete shift to Solar, Wind, Hydro & other alternative Energy for security & a viable economic future.

      In Canada the Feds Rebate Big Oil companies with your Tax dollars to the tune of Billions a year back to Alberta based Multi-National Oil Corporations.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Goldorak

      Jul 20, 2011 at 1:44pm

      Let's stop Fortis service to the Suzuki home this winter and watch... LOL

      0 0Rating: 0

      Peter Mielke

      Jul 20, 2011 at 2:29pm

      You state "Extracting gas from shale deposits, for example, requires up to 100 times the number of well pads to get the same amount of gas as conventional sources."

      If that were true then it would not be economically viable and with the price of natural gas currently why would a company even bother. Where is your proof of this?

      0 0Rating: 0

      NoRightWingNeoConSheep

      Jul 20, 2011 at 4:10pm

      @Peter Mielke...

      Where is YOUR DATA that says drilling up to 100 Well Pads is NOT Economically viable?

      How much does it cost to drill additional well heads with a known rate of return when you ALREADY have equipment & labor there drilling the initial Well.

      Economics 101 each additional unit costs drops furthermore WHERE IS YOUR DATA!

      0 0Rating: 0