Test - gas

Showing posts with label gas. Show all posts

Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking

June 02, 2016 Add Comment Edit

States and other smaller jurisdictions are saying no to fracking. More than 150 towns, cities, and counties across the U.S. have already adopted such policies. A number of US jurisdictions have passed laws forbidding fracking. Some have even mandated that up to one-third of their power must come from renewable sources by 2020.

After a thorough investigation the state of New York State banned fracking at the start of 2015. Maryland has put a moratorium on the practice and Maryland county became the first in the state to ban fracking outright.

Counties and towns in California, Ohio, and Texas banned fracking. Texas may be the home of oil but the town of Denton voted to ban fracking.

Residents voted to ban fracking in counties and towns in California including Mendocino and San Benito. Santa Barbara failed get enough votes due largely to Chevron Corporation and Occidental Petroleum who spent $7.7 million to prevent the anti-fracking plebiscites in California from succeeding.

Fifty-seven percent of voters in San Benito voted against fracking in a referendum. In places like Mendocino the vote was not even close with 75 percent of voters opting to ban fracking and protect their water. Seventy-eight percent citizens of Athens, Ohio, voted to ban fracking.

Similar efforts are underway across the US. In March, a small town in Western Pennsylvania legalized civil disobedience to combat fracking.

Related
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

The End of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

May 31, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Providing handouts to the wealthiest corporations on earth does not make much sense, particularly when their activities are the leading driver of climate change. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is the most obvious next step in our efforts to tackle the climate crisis. In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement forged at COP21, continuing fossil fuel subsidies is an oxymoron.

These subsidies take many forms including, tax breaks, cheap loans, price controls, purchase requirements, purchasing equipment, royalty breaks and direct spending. According to some reports there are over 800 ways that taxpayers support the fossil fuel industry.

According to the IMF, global energy subsidies amount to 5.3 trillion dollars, or $10 million a minute. This translates to 6.5 percent of global GDP, in 2015 alone. This is more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments. The IMF suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent. Everybody from Prince Charles to the IMF have called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Nicholas Stern, climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief commented: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, succinctly stated: “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

The world's biggest providers of fossil fuel subsidies are China, ($2.3tn) US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), and the European Union ($330bn).

By making fossil fuels cheaper, subsidies increase the use of dirty energy resulting in more emissions. A new report shows how subsidies are increasing our emissions. According to the report's author Radek Stefansk from The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary:

“The resultant 170-country, 30-year database finds that the financial and the environmental costs of such subsidies are enormous- and steadily increasing. The overwhelming majority of the world’s fossil fuel subsidies stem from China, the US, and the ex-USSR; as of 2010, this figure was $712 billion or nearly 80% of the total world value of subsidies. For its part, Canada has been subsidizing rather than taxing fossil fuels since 1998. By 2010, Canadian subsidies sat at $13 billion, or 1.4% of GDP. In that same year, the total direct and indirect financial costs of all such subsidies amounted to $1.82 trillion, or 3.8% of global GDP.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic contained in the report show that in the absence of subsidies emissions would have been cut in half in 2010.

IMF

Numerous other studies including IMF research have come to similar conclusion as the Policy School study. The IMF called these subsidies "unsustainable"." The IMF described these subsidies as "perverse" saying "they are using public funds to create a problem the world has agreed to fix in Paris. And they leave us all to pay the societal costs that fossil-fuel pollution causes."

Ending the subsidies would also reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution by half translating to about 1.6 million lives a year.

In 2014, IMF leader Christine Lagarde said reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and pricing carbon pollution should be priorities for governments around the world.

“We are subsidizing the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale. Both direct subsidies and the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011—this is about the same as the total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia,” Lagarde said.

G7

In 2009 the G7 (composed of UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) announced that it would end fossil fuel subsidies but no timelines were given. At a recent meeting of the G7 in Japan, the world's wealthiest economies have agreed to end fossil fuel subsidies in the next decade.

“Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, we recognise the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combating climate change,” said the leaders’ declaration, issued at the end their summit in Japan.

G20

In 2009, G20 countries promised to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies. According to a report titled "Empty Promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production," G20 countries are spending $452 billion US a year in direct subsidies to their respective fossil fuel industries. The study's co-author Alex Doukas, who is senior campaigner with Oil Change International, said,

"We're subsidizing companies to search for new fossil fuel reserves at time when we know that three-quarters of the proven reserves have to stay in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change...So paying companies to find more fossil fuels is folly."

The report was produced jointly by Oil Change International, an advocacy group focused on moving the world away from fossil fuels, and the Overseas Development Institute, the U.K.'s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

US

Despite numerous attempts to remove these subsidies in the US Congress (primarily the Republicans) have thwarted these efforts. The fossil fuel industry owns the Republican party who have consistently shown their loyalty to an industry that is rife with corruption and subterfuge. Internationally, the leaders from over 50 countries have made public commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium term.” However there has not been much concrete action to date.

Canada

Canada's total federal and provincial support for the petroleum industry was close to $2.7 billion US ($3.6 billion Cdn at current exchange rates) in the 2013-14 fiscal year, with federal subsidies accounting for roughly $1.6 billion. In his election platform, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged his government would end fossil fuel subsidies.

COP21

During the COP21 conference at the end of 2015, the UNFCCC released a statement which read: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Key said:

“Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies.

Figueres said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place...low oil prices are a good opportunity to really get going on this issue.”

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, said: “History will prove fossil fuel to be a dead end. Sweden will be amongst the first fossil free welfare nations of the world. And eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is an important step on this path.”

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

Solutions

The end of fossil fuel subsidies is coming and there are ways that we can expedite this transition. As reviewed by Price of Oil here are four major ways we can address the problem of subsidies:

Increased transparency – governments must stop hiding the handouts they give to fossil fuel companies!
Support for the poor and vulnerable – we need to be sure that poor countries and communities are supported to ensure access to energy while removing these subsidies.
Global coordination – without a way for the world to coordinate on this effort, countries will continue to drag their heels.
Phase-out Deadline – we all know that unless you have a deadline, you’re apt to procrastinate. It’s time to set one for fossil fuel subsidy elimination!

Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking

May 26, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Through the Environmental Protection Agency the Obama administration is cracking down on methane associated with the extraction of fossil fuels. Fugitive emissions are unintended or irregular gas leaks, however most of the emissions associated with fracking are intentional. Releases of gas are part of the standard operating procedure of the extraction process.

Methane is main ingredient in natural gas and one of the world's most potent greenhouse gases. The Obama administration’s new rules to curb methane come in the wake of two reports that illustrate the dangers of fracking. These reports show that methane is seeping into that atmosphere throughout the fracking process from extraction to the end users.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released the final version of their new federal rules to limit methane emissions at oil and gas facilities. While this is a good first step, the regulations only apply to new facilities.

Although carbon gets most of the attention, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Although burning natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal, fracking for gas also releases unburned methane. CH4 (methane) is the main component of natural gas, it is a potent GHG and as such, a major contributor to global warming. Although methane has a shorter active life, it is as much as 105 times better at trapping heat over a 20-year timeframe than carbon.

In addition to contributing to climate change, fracking has been shown to contaminate drinking water, cause seismic activity (earthquakes), contribute to air pollution, and destroy land. Further, US fracking operations may make it difficult for the US to achieve its 26 to 28 percent GHG reduction targets.

A recent Environment America Fracking Report concluded that fracking poses a risk to local communities and wildlife. The report comes to the clear and unavoidable conclusion that fracking must be stopped.

The report says that there are 137,000 fracking wells drilled or permitted across more than 20 states. In 2014, new fracking wells released 5.3 billion pounds (2.4 million metric tons) of methane into the atmosphere which is equivalent to the emissions from 22 new coal-fired plants. Fracking is fraught with a host of problems, starting from the point of extraction. Methane is released during fracking, in the processing, transporting and distribution.

The report concludes that there is “tremendous environmental harm and puts the health and safety of communities across the country at risk.” It further states that the companies behind this destruction should be made to pay for the damage they have caused.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methane calculations appear to have drastically underestimated the scale of the problem. A recent Harvard study used satellite data from across the country over a span of more than ten years and found that US methane emissions have increased by almost a third since 2002. What makes this data so shocking is the fact that the EPA had been insisting that US methane levels were falling. The Harvard satellite data concluded that the surge of methane from the US is responsible for between 30 and 60 percent of the global growth in methane emissions this past decade.

The Harvard research corroborates previous findings including a 2014 Stanford study that reviewed over 200 earlier studies to find “U.S. emissions of methane are considerably higher than official estimates.” A 2014 PNAS study of fracking sites in southwestern Pennsylvania found that methane was being released into the atmosphere at a rate 100 to 1,000 times greater than estimated by the EPA.

Together, these studies demonstrate that fracking obliterates any climate benefits associated with natural gas.

A study, entitled, “Greenhouse Gases from a Growing Petrochemical Industry” shows that in addition to methane emissions, fracked gas is encouraging the development of energy-intensive infrastructure and industries that produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide. The study concludes that cheap shale gas is encouraging the development of other energy-intensive infrastructure and industries, which in turn produce approximately 86 million tons a year of CO2 each year. This is the equivalent of 19 coal-fired power plants.

The EPA recently released the final version of new federal rules intended to curb methane emissions. It aims to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. The EPA expects the regulations will cost $530 million by 2025, while generating $690 million in environmental benefits.

Even before the EPA’s latest move, the fracking industry had fallen on hard times. It seems market forces, specifically the low price of oil, are forcing the shutdown of fracking operations.

Up to a third of all fracking companies may declare bankruptcy by the end of 2016, Fortune predicted at the end of 2015.

James West, an energy industry analyst at ISI Evercore, says months of low activity have left many of the companies in the hydraulic-fracturing business either insolvent or close to it. He says as many as a third of the fracking companies could go bust.

As reported by Desmogblog, some of the biggest players in the fracking industry are in trouble. Among them are Chesapeake Energy, Continental Resources, Whiting Petroleum and Halliburton. The latter has announced that it was axing 5,000 drilling jobs globally or eight percent of its workforce. Continental Resources has stopped its fracking operations and they reported their first annual loss since they began operating in 2007.

States dependent on fracking are being hit hard. North Dakota and Oklahoma are projecting a $1 billion budget shortfall and in Alaska, the budgetary shortfall is $3.5 billion.

We need to expose the myth that fracking is a source of clean energy. The research indicates that fracked gas is not a bridge fuel. Ramping up the use of fossil fuels is incompatible with the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to keep temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius. This is the conclusion of numerous studies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environment America Fracking report makes it abundantly clear that this also includes fracked gas.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
US Proposals to Cut Methane and Other Pollutants
EPA Announces Plans to Regulate Methane
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Radiative Forcing: Carbon Dioxide and Methane
Whats the Fracking Problem
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
The Implications of the US being a Global Leader in Fossil Fuel Production

Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

May 25, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Despite the secrecy of the fracking industry and the protections afforded by some states there is mounting evidence that hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" contaminates drinking water. Fracking is a fossil fuel extraction process that consists of injecting chemicals deep underground to break up shale formations.Conservative estimates indicate that there have been at least 260 documented examples of wells contamination due to fracking in Pennsylvania alone. As reported in Scientific American, a 2013 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA found widespread examples of methane laced drinking water In Pennsylvania. The researchers showed that the closer you are to a fracking site the more likely that your well will be contaminated.

According to an Environment America Fracking report water contamination is one of the most environmentally destructive corollaries of this process. "People living or working nearby can be exposed to these chemicals if they enter drinking water after a spill or if they become airborne."

"For the past decade, fracking has been a nightmare for our drinking water, our open spaces, and our climate," Rachel Richardson, a co-author of the paper from Environment America, told ThinkProgress.

There have been a number of high profile frack-water related problems. Here are a few examples

"Two families in Pennsylvania were awarded more than $4 million in March — ending a seven-year legal battle against a fracking company they said contaminated local water sources. Last summer, a Texas man was severely burned after methane, allegedly from nearby fracking, caused an explosion in his well shed. Last summer, scientists in Texas found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in one of the state’s major fracking regions."

Fracking also wastes vast quantities of water. According to Environment America, at least 239 billion gallons of water have been used in fracking since 2005. These fracking operations are reducing the availability of water and driving up the price. This is particularly pronounced in drought stricken areas of the country. In Colorado the price of water went up 100 times the usual rate. The competition for scarce water resources is a serious issue for agriculture.

One of the major problems associated with studying fracking is the fact that many of states do release data. This includes some of the states that do the most fracking (eg Texas and North Dakota). Of the states that do release information it was found that 14 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by fracking in 2014.

In February Triple Pundit covered the fracking water contamination connection. A 2015 a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report linked fracking to water contamination concluded that the absence of data and other “limiting factors” made research difficult. A similar conclusion was reached in a recent Stanford fracking report that was presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This study sought to explore how natural gas from the drilling sites contaminate local water supplies. However, it should be noted that the report’s lead author, Stanford professor Rob Jackson, has ties to the natural gas industry.

Nonetheless Jackson cites a case in Parker County, Texas, where the drillers did not include a cement liner all the way down the well and the result was that gases contaminated the drinking-water supply. Jackson singled out the dangers of contamination of drinking water from more than 2,600 shallow wells (ie wells that are less than 3,000 feet).

"We found a surprising number of places where companies are fracking directly into shallow freshwater aquifers," he says. "In no other industry would you be allowed to inject chemicals into a source of drinking-quality water."

After an exhaustive study New York state banned fracking in 2015. Last June, TriplePundit referenced studies which showed that fracking operations impact on water quality in Texas, and another associating lower birth-weight with mothers living near gas wells in Pennsylvania. Rolling Stone magazine followed up on an earlier Newsweek report on anecdotal evidence of infant mortality linked to fracking in Utah. Another fracking report linked a significant increase in hospitalizations to the "meteoric" rise in natural gas wells in Pennsylvania.

Determining the exact composition of the chemical cocktail used in fracking has been very elusive. However we are getting a better idea of what can be found in this toxic soup. There are over 700 chemicals used in fracking fluids which includes endocrine-disrupting chemicals, carcinogens and neurotoxins. This includes chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene and hydrochloric acid.

A 2014 study by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that around ten percent of chemicals used in fracking brine are toxic to humans or aquatic life. In addition to these poisonous substances, fracking can also bring naturally occurring radioactive materials to the surface.

As reported by the LA Times, a 2013 study of water collected from fracking sites in Colorado finds substances that have been linked to infertility, birth defects and cancer. They found endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which can affect human sex hormones. Of than 700 chemicals that could be used in the fracking process and estimated that about 100 are known or suspected EDCs.

Exposure to EDCs has serious health implications for fetuses, babies and young children. The World Health Organization issued a report which indicates that endocrine-related illnesses were on the rise worldwide.

The study, published in the journal Endocrinology, also found elevated levels of the hormone-disrupting chemicals in the Colorado River.

"With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure," said senior author Susan Nagel, who investigates the health effects of estrogen at the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Out of 39 water samples collected at five drilling sites, 89 percent showed estrogenic properties, 41perent were anti-estrogenic, 12 percent were androgenic and 46 percent were anti-androgenic..

"The human endocrine system and that of wildlife is guided by very small fluctuations of hormones," said Dr. Meg Schwarzman, associate director of the Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry at UC Berkeley. "Even low levels of anti-estrogenic or anti-androgenic activity could potentially alter development in ways that are meaningful."

Secrecy in the fracking industry may be coming to an end. A March 2014 ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered companies engaged in fracking to reveal the concoction of chemicals they use. However, the fracking industry has Republican allies in legislatures across the country. At the end of May 2016 the GOP in North Carolina pushed a bill that would jail anyone for disclosing the chemicals found in fracking fluid.

Related
Fracking: A Tragic Waste of Water Resources
Infographic - How Much Water Does Fracking Consume
Fracking Operations Shut Down to Protect Drinking Water in California
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change

Natural Gas versus Renewable Energy

May 23, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Natural gas, particularly gas from fracking cannot hold a candle to renewable energy. Nonetheless, the positive spin associated with fracking for natural gas persists. Natural gas is anything but clean but it continues to be sold as such.

This American made technology has been shipped all around the world. So has US natural gas. As the first load of American gas was being shipped by Cheniere Energy, the company’s vice president of marketing, Meg Gentle, told industry and government officials that natural gas should be rebranded as renewable energy.

"I’d challenge everyone here to reframe the debate and make sure natural gas is part of the category of clean energy, not a fossil-fuel category, which is viewed as dirty and not part of the solution," she said.

Contrary to Gentle's assertions, the emissions associated with natural gas are much higher than initially thought. In fact, gas may be worse than coal. We also know that fracking causes earthquakes and a host of other problems.

As explained in an Environment America report, air pollution from fracking also contributes to smog which can cause both disease and death. Fracking releases air pollutants that have been linked to cancer and other serious health effects.

Together the evidence is clear, natural gas is not clean energy. fracked gas does not warrant being called a bridge fuel. It is as bad or worse than some of the dirtiest forms of fossil fuels.

Natural gas will not slow climate change but it has undermined the growth of renewables. Starting in 2012 we began seeing evidence that the prodigious growth of fracking was slowing the market for renewables. Natural gas production started eating into renewable energy development more than four years ago. The result was that investments in wind and solar waned somewhat in 2012.

Despite these headwinds, renewable energy keeps growing in the US. As reported by Cleantechnica, a 2013 Credit Swiss report predicted US renewable energy would keep growing. The title to the first section of the report says it all, “Renewables Are Economic and Disruptive to Conventional Markets.” The falling costs of renewables has made them competitive with natural gas. Once so called externalities are incorporated into the equation, renewables definitively crush natural gas.

Despite the plethora of fracked gas that has flooded the market, renewables continue to grow in 2016. According to the "Energy Infrastructure Update," in the first three months of 2016, the US added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity compared to 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables.

Related
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah

May 19, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Earthquakes caused by fracking are a common occurrence in the US. We have seen a 4000 percent increase in earthquakes in the US in the last 8 years. Earthquakes caused by natural causes can be both destructive and deadly but they are unavoidable, whereas earthquakes caused by fracking for climate change causing natural gas are both lamentable and avoidable. Fracking related earthquakes are caused when the heavily polluted water used for fracking is disposed of by injecting it deep underground below aquifers near fault lines.

A new report mapping earthquake hazards, including those induced by fracking, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGG) says that

Eight years ago the US was averaging 24 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or larger each year. In 2015, there were 1,010 earthquakes of 3.0 or greater. This year we may exceed that number. As of mid-march there have already been 226 earthquakes in the central United States alone.

According to the USGG, fracking has put parts of Oklahoma and Kansas on a par with California in terms of their earthquake risk. Last year, Oklahoma officially earned the dubious distinction of being the most earthquake prone place on earth. Scientists have linked this seismic activity to the fracking boom in the state. In 2009 Oklahoma experienced 20 magnitude 3 or higher earthquakes in 2015 there were more than 700.

Even if we were to stop injecting wastewater deep underground, the earthquakes would likely continue as it sometimes takes a while for the water pressure to trigger a quake.

To see the USGG's earthquake map click here.

Related
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Myth that Fracked Natural Gas is a Bridge Fuel
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
US Proposals to Cut Methane and Other Pollutants
EPA Announces Plans to Regulate Methane
Radiative Forcing: Carbon Dioxide and Methane
Newfoundland Pauses Fracking
Whats the Fracking Problem
Record Breaking Drought in California at Odds with Fracking
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
The Implications of the US being a Global Leader in Fossil Fuel Production

Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking

May 16, 2016 Add Comment Edit

A close examination of the facts exposes unconventional gas as anything but a cleaner bridge fuel. The gas obtained from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) leaks at every step in the process from extraction to the transportation and distribution. New research suggests these leaks cancel out the emissions reduction efforts of the Obama administration.

While it was known that fracking operations leak, the extent of those leaks is far worse than anyone, including the EPA had expected. Leakage of as little as 4 percent makes fracking a dirtier source of energy than coal. As Colm Sweeney, the head of the aircraft program at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told the journal Nature, leakage makes the climate value of natural gas highly questionable.

A number of studies suggest that leakage rates in fracking are way above 4 percent. These studies show that leakage rates are between 7 and 17 percent. However the actual rates may be much higher.

"People who go out and actually measure methane pretty consistently find more emissions than we expect," said the lead author of a 2014 analysis, Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. "Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPA estimates," said Brandt. "And that’s a moderate estimate."

As reported by the Climate Desk, the World Resources Institute (WRI) indicates that the leakage of natural gas amounts to approximately $1.5 billion a year in lost revenues

"Those leaks are everywhere," said WRI analyst James Bradbury said in 2013. Leaks are ubiquitous in the nation’s 300,000 miles of natural gas pipeline. Bradbury says that if President Obama wants to tackle climate change he must address the issue. "You want to get these rules in place at the front end; we’re already playing catch-up."

Although the EPA has released new methane emission rules they only apply to new fracking operations. The regulations seek to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.

The Environmental Defense Fund and Google were behind a series of studies that showed that methane leaks are a serious problem particularly older cities. As the Porter Ranch disaster illustrated there are also massive methane leaks from extraction and storage sites.

In February, Harvard researchers used satellite data to conclude that between 2002 and 2014, US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent. This methane is responsible for 30 to 60 percent of the global increases in atmospheric methane.

In addition to the EPA's new climate rules, the US and Canada reached an agreement in March designed to reign in the leaks from all that new gas infrastructure.

However the amount of methane that continues to leak is massive and the multiple points at which this leakage occurs means that it will not be easily remedied.

Related
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

The Myth that Fracked Natural Gas is a Bridge Fuel

May 16, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Now that the EPA is beginning to reign in methane emissions, we need to expose the myth that natural gas is a bridge fuel that will help us to transition to renewable sources of energy. The logic supporting fracking is based on the fact that there are lower carbon emissions associated with the burning of gas compared to coal.

However, a number of studies clearly demonstrates that when you factor the leaks, fracking for gas, is not clean and it may even have a more destructive climate impact than coal.

In an Independent article, Geffrey Lean, concludes: “The new study strikes another blow at the strategy of both the US and British governments to rely on shale gas as a relatively clean ‘bridge’ from dirty fossil fuels to non-polluting renewable sources”.

It is important to note that this is not a new finding. The realization that fracked gas is not a bridge fuel was contained in the conclusion of the IEA's World Energy Outlook published in 2011 titled the "Golden Age of Gas."

A 2011 study by Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), also showed that switching from coal to natural gas will not reduce global warming.

Think Progress has referred to natural gas as a "bridge to nowhere" and they describe fracking as a "gangplank."

When fracked gas in included in the equation, all of President Obama's climate efforts are negated. Sadly the myth that natural gas is a bridge fuel persists despite years of study. In August 2015, Hillary Clinton delivered a keynote address at the National Clean Energy Summit in which she said we need to "build a safe bridge to a clean energy economy." Natural; gas is not a safe bridge to the clean energy economy.

As reviewed by Bill McKibben, two researchers by the name of Howarth and Ingraffea produced a number of papers which show that even if only 3 percent of fracked gas leaks, this would do more climate damage than coal. They estimate that methane leak rates from shale operations are between 3.6 and 7.9 percent. As Howarth says, "We closed coal plants and opened methane leaks, and the result is that things have gotten worse."

We now know that leakage rates are far worse than expected. Even if we are able to radically reduce the leaks Howarth says that methane emissions will keep rising as long as we keep fracking.

Related
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

Investor Warning: Fossil Fuels and the Risk of Stranded Assets

April 25, 2016 1 Comment Edit

It is becoming increasingly apparent that fossil fuels represent a substantial risk that should make investors wary. Fossil fuel reserves, including oil, gas and coal will be rendered obsolete in the coming decades, leaving investors holding valueless investments. A plethora of peer reviewed science tells us the curbing fossil fuel use is key to climate mitigation.

From widespread calamitous coastal flooding to devastating extreme weather events the need to urgently act on climate change has finally been accepted by every nation on earth. The economics of climate action is sound. A cost benefit analysis reveals the overwhelming logic. We must the eradication of fossil fuels as soon as possible. The impetus to act on climate change, once dismissed by some, is now a fact of life for all thinking people.

There is already downward pressure on the fossil fuel industry and this will only intensify in 2016 as we begin to see policy shifts and new regulatory regimes. The Paris Climate Agreement formally signals the end of fossil fuels.

We are already seeing trillions of dollars being divested from the fossil fuel industry. Much of the money divested is being reallocated to renewable energy, the primary competition for the fossil fuel industry. Investments in fossil fuels need time to mature, however post Paris time is the one thing that fossil fuel investors do not have.

The IPCC Synthesis Report indicates that the burning of fossil fuels must be completely ended by 2100. We must work quickly to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels because the longer we wait the more it will cost. We also risk surpassing dangerous tipping points from which we will not be able to recover. Simply put we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels if we hope to stay within the 2C upper threshold limit.

The concerns about fossil fuels and stranded assets were reviewed in an April 8, 2016, CBC Business article by Don Pittis in which he warned investors about the dangers of fossil fuels. As he explained, the issue of stranded assets is not merely the concern of environmentalists, it is central to shrewd analyses of the investment community. Concerns about stranded assets are coming from all quarters including mainstream, credible sources, like Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England.

Research from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has already announced a $50 billion drop in Canadian oil and gas investment in electrical power plant generation from fossil fuels. However, there are implications for the oil sands and pipelines.

As explained in the CBC article, a Oxford University study indicates that after 2017, fossil fuel powered electricity generation may "not be able to run long enough to pay off their capital costs, turning them into stranded assets." This study expands the stranded-assets concept to include what economists call capital.

"Investors putting money into new carbon-emitting infrastructure need to ask hard questions about how long those assets will operate for, and assess the risk of future shutdowns and writeoffs," says Cameron Hepburn, one of the academics involved in Oxford study.

"If the 2 C target is to be taken seriously, then current and future assets will have to be written off before the end of their economically useful life (become stranded assets) or we will have to rely on large-scale investments down the line in carbon capture and storage technologies that are as yet unproven and expensive," says the report.

While the Oxford study is focused on electricity generation the implications extend to the fossil fuel industry as a whole. According to Duetsche Bank at least half of all known fossil fuel reserves will need to be kept in the ground to stay within our carbon budget.

"For their own financial benefit, what investors must consider is whether the climate risk has been properly calculated into the future income stream." Pittis wrote. "If investors in power plants, pipelines and new oil development go ahead without proper regard to climate risk and find those assets stranded, they will be worth less than advertised."

The Financial Times covered the same study and reported:

"Virtually all new fossil fuel-burning power-generation capacity will end up stranded... A similar logic can be applied to parts of the capital stock."

Carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere for centuries so we must appreciate not just annual emissions but their cumulative totals or the global carbon budget.

The Oxford paper states that capital stock created after 2017 would break the global carbon budget. However the Financial Times article suggests that the Oxford study is premised on some optimistic assumptions and therefore it may be more difficult to keep temperatures from rising beyond the 2C upper threshold limit. This assessment suggests that the risks are even greater than those presented in the Oxford research.

Why would any sane investor put his or her money into a source of energy that is doomed to be shut down?

As explained in the FT article:

"[G]iven the longevity of a large part of the capital stock, the time for decisive change is right now, not decades in future."

As reported in the Green Market Oracle, just ahead of the Paris Climate Agreement two reports corroborated concerns about stranded assets. One of these reports come from the Think Tank, Carbon Tracker and another comes from Critical Resource, a firm that advises fossil fuel companies.

The Carbon Tracker report indicated that more than 2.2 trillion worth of fossil fuel projects are at risk of being stranded. Anthony Hobley, chief executive at Carbon Tracker said:

"Our report offers these companies a warning [about] avoiding significant value destruction,"

The top four countries at risk from stranded fossil fuel assets are the US at $412 billion, Canada at $220 billion, China at $179 billion and Australia at $103bn. The companies with the greatest exposure are Shell, ExxonMobil and Pemex.

Despite these risks, $1.3 trillion is being spent on new oil projects and $124 billion is being spent on existing projects. We need to start with a moratorium on new fossil fuel development.

Daniel Litvin, MD of Critical Resources said.

"The critical mass point could be as soon as a couple of years down the road, which is pretty soon for an industry that has been around for 100 years."

How can the oil industry fail to see the writing on the wall? The fossil fuel industry would not be the first that failed to see clear signs of its demise. Hobley pointed to the demise of Kodak and Blockbuster as illustrations.

In the past decade, the emissions implied by the investment in power generation have been rising at 4 percent a year. The math behind this investment growth when partnered with the need for climate action make investing in fossil fuels a fool's errand.

Related
The Risks Associated with Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
COP21 and Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
Fossil Fuel Divestment and Stranded Assets
Infographic - Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
Oil is a Bad Investment
The Fossil Fuel Industry has Reason to be Nervous
Fossil Fuels are a Clear and Present Danger
Study on the Fossil Fuel Industry and the Bursting of the Carbon Bubble
Graph of Fossil Fuels GHG Contributions
The Cost of Carbon
Now is the Time to End our Reliance on Fossil Fuels
Fossil Fuels are making the Planet Uninhabitable
Fossil Fuels are the Most Hated Industry in the US
Exxon is not the Only Bad Apple: The Whole Fossil Fuel Industry is Rotten to the Core

Diminishing Profits Signal the Beginning of the End of Oil

February 04, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Oil is dying. Low oil prices are erasing profits and setting into motion a death spiral from which fossil fuels will not recover. Big Oil is cutting costs, and scaling back production, this results in smaller returns and diminished investor confidence. The addition of carbon pricing schemes and the elimination of subsidies will ultimately inflate prices and reduce demand.
____________________________

The profits of the big oil companies keep falling along with the price of a barrel of crude. In 2015, the profits of oil behemoths like Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP tumbled. Together, these big four saw profits decline by an average of 65 percent last year. These falling margins have a cascade of impacts that are hastening the demise of dirty energy.

Shell

At the beginning of 2014, Royal Dutch Shell’s quarterly earnings for the end of 2013 fell by almost half (48%). This was the third consecutive quarter of disappointing earnings. This was in part due to Shell’s failed multibillion dollar Alaskan drilling program. The situation has continued to deteriorate for the oil giant as Shell’s profits fell by 56 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015. Over the course of the entire year, Shell’s earnings fell by 80 percent compared to 2014. To make matters worse, Standard & Poor's downgraded Shell’s long term credit rating in February and further downgrades have been intimated.

Chevron

In 2015, Chevron saw its profits decline by 40 percent compared to 2014 and the company reported losses in the fourth quarter of last year. Chevron lost $588 million in the last quarter of 2015; during the same period in 2014 the company made a profit of $3.5 billion. This is the first time the company has reported quarterly losses since 2002.

Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil saw its quarterly profits decline by 58 percent at the end of 2015 and the company’s profits are down by half compared to the year before. Its exploration and production business lost $538 million in the U.S.

BP

British Petroleum said that its profits fell by 91 percent last year. They recorded a $3.3 billion loss in the fourth quarter of last year and $6.48 billion in losses for the year. Like Shell, the company also kicked off the new year with a long term credit downgrade from Standard & Poor’s.

Macro realities

There is no end in sight to low oil prices and falling share prices. We have not seen a commodity collapse of this magnitude in decades. However, unlike preceding oil crashes, environmental pressures and economic trends make the longer term financial forecast look bleak for fossil fuels.

Oil production continues to outpace demand and more supply is on the way now that the sanctions against Iran have been lifted. The situation is about to get even worse as storage space is nearing capacity.

While many are waiting for oil prices to rebound they may be disappointed. Driven by climate concerns and the declining price of both renewables and energy storage, we are seeing unprecedented interest in non-fossil fuel based energy production from all quarters.

In the longer term, the outcome at COP21 lends credence to the belief that fossil fuels will be subject to a host of headwinds. The fossil fuel industry is also having to deal with a rapidly expanding number of legal challenges, negative public perceptions and disruptions due to protests.

Death spiral

In addition to market pressure associated with low oil prices, producers realize that to bring oil prices up you have to decrease supply (i.e. reduce production). However, decreased production will further diminish returns and this will scare off investors.

Low oil prices have already shut down hundreds of extraction operations. Oil prices are currently about half of what they need to be to make the tar sands and shale oil viable. The exodus had begun even before oil prices fell to their current lows. At the beginning of last year, Shell announced that it was among a number of oil companies that are shelving their tar sands operations. Many are predicting that at least half of all shale oil producers will perish this year. It is not only energy intensive forms of fossil fuels that are at risk, as explained by Jesse Thompson, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, “at this price range, nothing is safe.”

Big oil is responding to low oil prices and declining profits by slashing capital spending and operating expenses. For example, Exxon has said that it will cut spending by one quarter this year compared to last and BP is expected to cut spending by almost $3.6 billion this year. This translates to less production and exploration. Less exploration means lower reserves and lower reserves sends a powerful message about the future of the industry.

The linkage between lower oil prices and decreased production have set in motion a causal chain of events that does not bode well for the fossil fuel industry. As explained in a New York Times article:

"To assure their futures, oil companies need to add to their reserves to replace production, but with plunging prices, companies are delaying or canceling projects and struggling to add to their reserves."

Reduced earnings are translating to cuts in production. For Shell that means delaying a liquefied natural gas facility in Canada and a deep water oil and gas development in Nigeria.

The combination of less production and low oil prices translates to lower profits which puts downward pressure on the dividends that they can pay out to investors. This in turn, curtails investor interest. While big oil is trying to reassure investors by saying that they will continue to pay big dividends, the situation is untenable.

Maintaining investor interest will be challenging for BP and others, as explained by Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in London. He is quoted as saying:

"2016 is likely to be a year of transition for BP with limited ability" to cover its dividend unless oil prices rose substantially.

Michael Hewson, an analyst at CMC Markets puts it this way:

"But with average oil prices still trading at multi-year lows so far this year the question now needs to be asked in how long can BP sustain the dividend at current levels, without an imminent pick up in oil prices."

When investor confidence evaporates, the fate of the fossil fuel industry is sealed.

The position of big oil goes from bad to worse when we factor carbon pricing and an end to subsidies. This will raise the cost of fossil fuels and reduce demand.

Although it will take decades it is clear that we can kill what Bill McKibben has called the immortal zombie of fossil fuels.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related Articles
Falling oil Prices Make Fossil Fuels a High Risk Investment
Oil is a Bad Investment
Financial Losses Associated with Fossil Fuels
Low Oil Prices Offer an Opportunity to Combat Climate Change
The Upside to Low Oil Prices
Climate Pros and Cons of Low Oil Prices
Falling Oil Prices and a Global Climate Agreement
Cheap Oil Will Not Stop Renewables
Why Oil Prices Matter for Renewable Energy
An Upside to Low Oil Prices?
Video - Why Oil Prices Will Keep Falling

The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change

January 26, 2016 Add Comment Edit

The invisible methane leak in California is a great opportunity to open a discussion about the future of natural gas in America. The Porter Ranch disaster is one of the biggest environmental disasters in US history and it is happening right now in southern California. The methane leak at the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of northwest Los Angeles, is already the largest such leak in U.S. history and it is far from over. The leak started in October and SoCalGas has indicated that it does not expect to be able to cap the leak until March.

Except for a mildly unpleasant aroma (due to an additive called mercaptan) a methane leak, which is the largest constituent of natural gas, is far more harmful to our climate than an oil spill. Unlike the pyrotechnics or black gooey mess that are often associated with an oil spill, a methane leak is invisible. The leak may not be discernible to the naked eye, but it is nonetheless highly destructive to both the earth’s climate and human health. The fact that it cannot be seen does not make it innocuous. The Porter Ranch leak is more serious than any of the 34 major oil spills that took place in North America last year.

Although it has not garnered the same attention, the leak is highly reminiscent of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. So far, 2,300 homes have been evacuated and 1,500 other families are being relocated. The crisis prompted California governor Gerry Brown to issue a state-of-emergency declaration.

Carbon is the best known greenhouse gas, it gets the most press because it represents the largest share of climate pollution. However carbon is a relative lightweight compared to methane when it comes to trapping heat. Over a 100-year period, methane causes 28 times as much warming as carbon dioxide and over a 20 year time span, methane is 84 times as potent as CO2. Methane is responsible for ten percent of US greenhouse gas emissions.

While methane leaks are common at drilling sites, this one is a monster. It is spewing methane at a rate of 40 to 64 tons per hour. The EDF has compared the daily emissions coming out of the Porter Ranch leak to six coal fired power plants or 4.7 million cars. So far around 90,000 metric tons of methane have seeped from the SoCalGas facility and this is expected to continue for many more weeks.

According to Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University and an expert in the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, the Porter Ranch leak will likely add 5 percent to the total amount of methane released by the entire US oil and gas industry.

Methane is not only destructive to the climate, it is a serious health risk for people. In addition to being highly flammable, methane fumes are dangerous to inhale. Other compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and benzene, have also been detected in the air and they are also injurious to human health. An attorney working on behalf of one thousand local residents says that there are short term effects from the leak including bleeding eyes and gums to long term effects like cancer and death. A class action filing alleges that SoCalGas and its parent company “negligently failed to construct, operate, and maintain” the storage facility.

California Governor Jerry Brown has ordered SoCalGas to pay to mitigate the leak, however, the issue is far deeper than this one event or the costs that it will incur. This leak may help to divest methane of its false persona as a green alternative to coal and oil.

Although the EPA is working on reigning in methane emissions, the Porter Ranch incident points to the wider issue of natural gas extraction. Amy Townsend-Small, a University of Cincinnati professor who’s studied methane emissions from the natural gas industry, said the size of the leak is staggering. “It’s a perfect example of how we can work on decreasing emissions from individual wells, but there’s going to be catastrophic events…and that can change everything,” she said.

This is certainly not the only time that we have seen methane leaks at such facilities. There are about 400 other storage wells like the Aliso Canyon. The Porter Ranch disaster shows just how destructive natural gas extraction can be.

“This event is a watershed moment both because it drives home for the general public the fact that these kinds of problems can and do exist, and hopefully it drives home for the industry that a business-as-usual approach is no longer tenable,” Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said.

There is a lot of talk about the importance of using natural gas to help wean America off of oil, but the Porter Ranch disaster proves that fracking, touted by some as a more environmentally sound alternative, is anything but safe.

“I think this opens the door to a larger conversation: the fact that this gas is used to meet the peaking electricity demands,” said Timothy O’Connor, a director with EDF. Regulators need to look at “the role of natural gas for meeting peak electricity demand and how we reduce that role.”

Rather than hail natural gas as an important source of cleaner energy we need to acknowledge that it is just another fossil fuel that must be kept in the ground.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

Oil is a Bad Investment

January 21, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Iinvestors can no longer avoid the realization that their fossil fuel holdings are fraught with risks. While there are many factors at play, the 18 month slide and low price forecasts combine to make the point that investing in oil makes no economic sense.

In the short term China's slowing growth and the glut of oil are driving down the price. The situation will be exacerbated by the lifting of sanctions allowing Iran to sell its oil. High production and lower than expected demand mean that oil prices will continue to fall well into 2016.

Oil has fallen a long way, it has lost 80 percent of its value compared to its high in January 2014 when it was more than $110 a barrel (bbl). When oil slipped below $60/bbl a number of intensive drilling operations from the Arctic to the Canadian tar sands and American shale oil ceased to be profitable. These price declines reduced production but not enough to stop oil's plummeting trajectory.

At the end of 2015 the price oil plunged below $40/bbl. As the new year dawned oil prices continued to slide, they even briefly slipped below $30/bbl. US oil prices fell to $26.55/bbl on January 20th. We have not seen oil prices this low in 14 years and we have not seen an 18th month long slide in more than 60 years.

According to the Financial Forecast Center the outlook for the next six months suggest that oil will continue to decline, falling to around $25/bbl by the start of the summer.

Although the market will eventually balance out supply and demand, the longer term outlook is still challenging for oil prices. The eia predicts that oil prices could fall to as low as $20/bbl in 2017. The Telegraph reports that some are predicting that oil could go as low as $10/bbl.

Looking even further out the situation for oil may become even more difficult. The COP21 deal sent a powerful message to the markets. The era of oil is coming to an end and as we gear up for the implementation date of the deal in 2020 there will be unprecedented downward pressure on oil prices.

Related Articles
Diminishing Profits Signal the Beginning of the End of Oil
Falling oil Prices Make Fossil Fuels a High Risk Investment
Financial Losses Associated with Fossil Fuels
Low Oil Prices Offer an Opportunity to Combat Climate Change
The Upside to Low Oil Prices
Climate Pros and Cons of Low Oil Prices

Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21 (Infographic)

December 26, 2015 Add Comment Edit

One of the most important things we can do to curb climate change is to end fossil fuel subsidies. This would reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned and it would level the playing field for clean renewable sources of energy. Event thought 60 percent of all new investment is going into renewable energy fossil fuels still get the lions share of subsidies. The International Energy Agency (IEA) say that government subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than those for renewable energy.

It is estimated that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce greenhouse gas emission by 10 per cent by 2050.

As reported in the New Yorker, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said that there are $5.3 trillion worth of fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 or six and a half percent of global G.D.P.. This breaks down to $10 million a minute or more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments.

According to Reuters fossil fuel subsidies exceed climate aid by a ratio of 40 to 1.

Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "Given tight budget times and the need to address global warming, subsidising activities that are heating the planet just doesn't make sense. The only beneficiaries of fossil fuel subsidies are oil, gas and coal companies that are raking in record profits at the expense of the rest of us."

Prince Charles said the governments must end fossil fuel subsidies. Realizing the dream of ending fossil fuel subsidies was brought one step closer at the recent COP21 climate meetings in Paris.

Almost 40 countries have endorsed the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué, including: Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Samoa, the U.S., Uganda and Uruguay.

According to the UNFCCC statement: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué at the Paris Conference said: “Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies...Their elimination would represent one seventh of the effort needed to achieve our target of ensuring global temperatures do not rise by more than 2°C. As with any subsidy reform, change will take courage and strong political will, but with oil prices at record lows and the global focus on a low carbon future—the timing for this reform has never been better.”

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place.

Some wrongly argue that fossil fuel subsidies help the poorest members of society. According to the IEA said. Just 8 percent of aid reached the poorest 20 percent of each country’s population last year. Most of the benefits—85% to 90%—typically accrue to those on middle incomes and the wealthy

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

In 2011 President Obama's attempts to eliminate $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget was denied by Congress. However in the US and around the world pressure is growing to definitively end subsidies that are wrecking the climate and imperiling life on earth.

Here is an infographic that does a good job of visually illustrating the issue of fossil fuel subsidies:

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )