Talking about climate change can quickly become an emotional event. Many of us feel a moral imperative to act, entangling us in a web of anger, frustration and sadness.
We see the irreparable damage it has already caused and what lies ahead. We see that, all too often, it is those who are emitting the lowest levels of greenhouse gases who suffer the most. The indigenous, the disadvantaged, the forgotten are on the front lines, while we can barely remember to bring our reusable bags to the market.
It’s enough to make me want to throw a glass against a wall and scream.
So my pulse quickens and the blood rises to my cheeks when I meet someone who is ill-informed, and believes that the global warming din is nothing but alarmist malarkey. (Hats off to the impressive efforts of Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil and friends for that one.)
And my jaw clenches and I feel the bubbles of aggravation percolating when I encounter those who do not deny the problem, but seem unwilling to make even the smallest adjustments to their lifestyles.
But what exactly does it get me to take the antagonistic, defensive–even self-righteous–approach?
Emotions reign and the conversation is just more CO2 spewed into the air, with no satisfying result.
Lately I have been thinking about elevator pitches, and how useful they can be when you want to make a compelling, dispassionate argument in a short period of time. They may only be the start of a longer conversation, but the point is you know them cold, and they keep you on point and focused.
They may even save the life of a glass or two.
So in the spirit of taking a more measured approach to conversations related to climate change, I bring you an elevator pitch on why natural gas–and building new infrastructure for it–is a dirty stopgap at best.
But first, here is why natural gas has been on my mind.
In Maine, we have a governor with a pugnacious attitude toward anything but fossil-fueled solutions. He has consistently spoken out against and vetoed bills supporting renewable energy sources. He is actively exploring pipeline expansion to increase natural gas capacity in the state, while he cuts programs like Efficiency Maine and takes contracts away from wind power. He is also the only New England governor who supports drilling in the North Atlantic.
Last Saturday, I stood with hundreds of other Maine residents and students in Augusta to protest Governor LePage’s “dismal” and “short-sighted” record on climate policies. Among our demands: no new fossil fuel infrastructure.
Ok. Start the clock. If it’s a quick ride, let’s stick to the points in bold. If we’re headed for the 110th floor, I’ll give you the supporting facts, too.
Advocates for natural gas point to its lower emissions, and call it the “cleanest” fossil fuel.
Because it pumps lower amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it’s been touted as a bridge solution as we move toward renewable energy sources. It’s relatively abundant and emits lower levels of pollutants, including nitrogen, mercury and sulfur oxides.
But natural gas has several dark secrets–especially when you take into account its extraction. Don’t let the natural mislead you.
(1) Natural gas is largely methane–a gas 30 times more potent than CO2 in its ability to trap heat–and leaks have been a significant problem from production through the transportation chain.
Supporting evidence: About 50 percent more methane is in the atmosphere than previously estimated by the EPA, which signifies more leakage than originally believed, according to a recent study from Stanford University, MIT and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(2) The impact of natural gas production on our health, the air we breathe and water on which we rely is another concern for which the evidence continues to grow.
Supporting evidence: For example, an analysis published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the integrity of the wells used as part of the drilling process were leading to gas leaking into aquifers.
In California, about three billion gallons of fracking wastewater were illegally injected into drinking water and farm-irrigation aquifers.
A 2011 AP story compared the air around gas fields in Wyoming to Los Angeles smog, with ozone levels two-thirds higher than the EPA’s maximum healthy limit.
The larger issue being that there are too many drilling operations, and too few resources to inspect and provide industry oversight. In 2012, there were nearly 500,000 producing gas wells. Of those flagged as “high priority” by the Bureau of Land Management, between the years of 2009 and 2012 failed to inspect more than half.
Furthermore, hiding behind “trade secret” exemptions, the fracking industry is often not required to reveal the chemicals they use in the production process. Many are hazardous, including methanol, benzene, lead and hydrogen fluoride. Poor regulation combined with high failure rates make for a toxic soup in our environment. When the cat’s away…
Finally, (3) A study released in the fall of 2014 called natural gas’s impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions a wash, with the possibility of raising them. Why? Because it takes resources away from carbon-free renewable energy sources.
Supporting evidence: This study assumed little to no methane leakage. The researchers argued that an abundant supply of natural gas could delay for decades the time in which it would take for renewable energy sources to become economically competitive. Moreover, if natural gas makes energy cheaper, it is a disincentive to use less energy and be more efficient.
Presenting natural gas as a clean energy solution–even as a “bridge” solution–masks the urgency of our present situation. Just like fossil fuels, time and research dollars are finite. Every dollar spent on natural gas and creating new infrastructure for it (which we are admitting is relatively temporary) is a dollar taken away from carbon-free, sustainable solutions.
And in the event I am in an elevator of the world’s tallest skyscraper, natural gas has also been an earth-shaking event. In Oklahoma, prior to 2008 (i.e., before the fracking boom) earthquakes greater than a magnitude of 3.0 happened on average twice a year. In 2014, the state experienced 562. The U.S. Geological Survey has unequivocally connected it to the deep injection of wastewater during the fracking process.
Clearly, I have reached the penthouse now.
-Jesse Nankin
Eco-Maineia 