Skip to main content

Most US politicians regard natural gas as the key element in our energy policy.  In his January State-of-the-Union address President Obama said, “[Natural gas is] the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”  Many environmentalists disagree; John Farrell describes natural gas as “a gateway drug.”

President Obama isn’t alone believing that the US must have an all-of-the-above energy policy; slowly reducing our use of coal while heavily relying on natural gas and ramping up renewables.  The Washington conventional wisdom argues the US can’t meet its energy needs, and reduce carbon emissions, without using natural gas as our primary energy source.  This perspective has become one of the few points of agreement between Democrats and Republicans.  (Although every time there’s any disruption in the international oil market, Republicans reprise their “drill, baby, drill” refrain.)  But there are four problems with this perspective.

History teaches that the conventional wisdom is often wrong and dogmatically clinging to it reduces opportunity, in the long run.  After all, it was once the conventional wisdom that the earth was flat (and the center of the universe).  Just before the Montgomery bus boycott, it was the conventional wisdom that it would take many decades to end segregation.  (In 2007, it was the conventional wisdom that an African-American could not be elected President.)

As a (retired) technologist, I’ve seen the conventional wisdom about computers change numerous times: at first, computers were thought to have limited uses; then the mainframe was regarded as the “center” of the information universe; more recently is was believed that smart devices – such as phones and tablets – were not as versatile as personal computers.

The second problem with the natural-gas-as-a-bridge paradigm is that it creates the false impression we have the global-climate-change problem under control.  Journalist Amy Harder observed:

First, shifting significantly away from coal to natural gas doesn't get the planet anywhere close to the carbon-reduction levels scientists say we must reach. And second, while the natural-gas boom is great for the economy and the immediate reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, it has deflated the political urgency to cut fossil-fuel dependence, which was more compelling when we thought our resources of oil and natural gas were scarce.

American public opinion reflects the weakening of our will to address global climate change.  A recent Gallup Poll found the majority of respondents (54 percent) believe that the effects of global warming are “already happening.”  However, only a third (36 percent) believe “global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime."

This flies in the face of reality.  Writing in ROLLING STONE, environmentalist Bill McKibben observed that we can only emit 564 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2050 and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (the threshold for catastrophic consequences).  Last year we pumped a record 36 gigatons into the atmosphere; at this rate we’ll exceed 564 gigs in about a decade.   (McKibben also pointed out that the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies are 2975 gigatons , “the fossil fuel we’re currently planning to burn.”)

The natural-gas-as-a-bridge paradigm has slowed down the pace of critical adaptation.   If Americans are going to hit a horrific environmental threshold in slightly more than a decade then we need to start changing our behavior now; but we’re stuck in our old ways.   Writing in the Washington Post, Brad Plumer observed:

Say the world wants to stabilize the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere at about 450 parts per million — giving us a shot at limiting global warming below 2°C. If that's the goal, then the world can use natural gas for only a brief period before transitioning to carbon-free power. Global gas consumption would have to peak by 2020 or 2030.

We must move aggressively into renewables now.

The fourth problem is there are negative costs associated with the natural-gas-as-a-bridge strategy.  A recent report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science enumerated the risks of global climate change.  There are serious public health consequences including air pollution, infectious diseases, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and extreme weather, in general.

And, of course, there are major economic repercussions.  A recent UN report indicated, “The effects of global warming could cost the world $1.45 trillion in economic damages, with the planet's crop production projected to decline up to two percent every decade.”  Reliance upon fossil fuels deflates the US economy.  The Rocky Mountain Institute noted that 76 percent of American industry relies upon fossil fuel power.  They projected that if the US moved off of carbon-based fuels to renewable fuels, there would be $5 trillion in savings, growing the economy by an estimated 158 percent.

John Farrell is right when he says, ”Natural gas isn’t a bridge, it’s a relapse.”

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We talking about Rush Limbaugh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I'll go read the diary now.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 06:09:26 AM PDT

  •  Yes, the natural-gas-as-a-bridge method (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LI Mike, FishOutofWater, unfangus, JeffW

    is another example in which incrementalism is a can't get there from here approach: you can't address Climate Change on the earth's timeframe with it. It doesn't scale to address the problem. In the end, it frequently amounts to one step forward, three steps back, as you explain.

    Well done.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 06:15:41 AM PDT

  •  trade KXL for renewables. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep

    I'm one who believes the ONLY way we save this planet is to make ALT-E cheaper than fossil fuels.  It's a waste of time to try and stop every pipeline, every fracked well, every deep ocean well... and the rest of the world is just starting to develop their fossil fuels.

    In 30 years, we've failed miserably trying to stop carbon emissions. The biggest impact on carbon emissions has been the drop in price of solar and wind.  When we make solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels, we win.

  •  There Is No Credible Acceptance of Climate Change (0+ / 0-)

    on earth.

    Global ownership denies the phenomenon in public; both ownership and leadership deny serious response to it in any case.

    The second problem with the natural-gas-as-a-bridge paradigm is that it creates the false impression we have the global-climate-change problem under control.
    I disagree, I say it represents the position of ownership and leadership that it's not a problem we'll address.

    You also wrote:

    American public opinion ... our will .... majority of respondents .... you or your .... we  .... we  .... we’ll .... we’re .... Americans ... we need ... our ... we’re ... our
    This is a ridiculous world view, it assumes that society's behavior reflects large numbers of its population's will or opinions.

    It doesn't.

    Our economies and governing systems reflect a thousand years of evolution in conditions of unprecedented surpluses, and accordingly they all defer in the extreme to individual liberty while minimizing the power of society impose restraints on behalf of the interest of the whole.

    For the purposes of the degree and pace of change required to preserve the present global civilization with most of its population of potentially 10 billion, civilization is the private property of a few thousand global owners. None of our systems of government, economy or culture and wisdom have either the authority or the practical power to cause them to change the way they're operating their world, in which the rest of us are mere occupants.

    If you think I'm off base, run a demonstration project, pick one small easily defined and tested societal change that falls many orders of magnitude short of the difficulty of reversing climate change. Let's say, establish social security for 2/3 of humanity. The wealth and income required to accomplish this can likely be had from half a dozen billionaires.

    Prove that you can accomplish ANYTHING global under the systems we have now, and I'll pay more attention to your implications that humanity is a "we" that has the power and ability to "change" "our" behavior in relation to climate change.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 06:34:46 AM PDT

  •  Those advocating a stronger response to climate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    change have not put forward a complete, practical proposal on how we quickly reduce CO2 emission rates.  Just saying emitt less now does not work.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:04:45 AM PDT

    •  Some have, but they are mostly being ignored. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      Those advocating a stronger response to climate change have not put forward a complete, practical proposal on how we quickly reduce CO2 emission rates.
      Some possibilities: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/... (pdf)
      http://thinkprogress.org/... (a short summary of the pdf)
      http://thinkprogress.org/... (another route to cutting carbon emissions)

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

      by Calamity Jean on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:09:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most importantly Democratic Senators proposing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        a complete and practical plan is needed, with Pres Obama making major speeches proposing the plan.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:37:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The best way to combat climate disaster, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          a carbon tax, requires taking back the House and increasing the  number of Democrats in the Senate.  

          "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

          by Calamity Jean on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:22:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site