{"id":1428,"date":"2015-01-31T01:07:41","date_gmt":"2015-01-31T01:07:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/?p=1428"},"modified":"2015-10-14T10:35:00","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T10:35:00","slug":"why-a-uk-shale-gas-industry-is-incompatible-with-the-2c-framing-of-dangerous-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/why-a-uk-shale-gas-industry-is-incompatible-with-the-2c-framing-of-dangerous-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Why a UK shale gas industry is incompatible with the 2\u00b0C framing of dangerous climate change"},"content":{"rendered":"

This piece is a \u00a0response to\u00a0Professor Robert Mair\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>Royal\u00a0<\/span>Society\u00a0<\/span>science policy blog<\/a>, “Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in the UK \u2013 an opportunity to shape a constructive way forward<\/span><\/em>\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/span>(In Verba,\u00a0<\/em>26th Jan)<\/span>:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(The analysis underpinning this response has been developed with my colleague Dr John Broderick)<\/em><\/p>\n

Professor Mair\u2019s Royal Society post suggests that the development of a UK shale gas industry is compatible with the UK\u2019s climate change targets. I suggest this conclusion is premised on a partial and overly simplistic interpretation of the UK\u2019s muddled climate change obligations. In brief:<\/p>\n

Shale gas within domestic carbon budgets
\n<\/strong>The development of a UK shale gas industry may be compatible with the UK\u2019s domestic carbon budgets \u2013 <\/span>just<\/em>. These budgets are however premised on a high probability of <\/span>exceeding<\/em> the 2\u00b0C threshold between acceptable and dangerous climate change and on a highly inequitable allocation of the global carbon budget to the UK. Even under such lax conditions (and hence a larger UK carbon budget) there is a significant risk that a new and large-scale UK shale gas infrastructure could become a stranded asset within a decade or so of major shale gas extraction.<\/span><\/p>\n

Shale gas within 2\u00b0C carbon budgets
\n<\/strong>The development of a UK shale gas industry is incompatible with UK\u2019s equitable share of the IPCC\u2019s carbon budget for a <\/span>\u201clikely\u201d<\/em> chance of not exceeding the 2\u00b0C obligation. This remains the case even if shale gas can be combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The CO<\/span>2<\/sub> emissions from gas-CCS are anticipated to be five to fifteen times greater per kWh of electricity generated than are the emissions from either renewables or nuclear. Add to this the timeframe for developing a mature UK shale gas industry and, even with CCS, shale gas can have no appreciable role in the UK\u2019s energy mix.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Please note:
\n<\/strong>The MacKay and Stone shale gas report for DECC, referred to in the Royal Society post, includes the following important conclusion:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>I<\/em>f a country brings any additional fossil fuel reserve into production, then in the absence of strong climate policies, we believe it is likely that this production would increase cumulative emissions in the long run. This increase would work against global efforts on climate change.<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In relation to the carbon budgets for a \u201clikely\u201d<\/em> chance of 2\u00b0C, it is abundantly clear that there is a complete \u201cabsence of strong climate policies\u201d.<\/em> Consequently, over and above all the detailed discussion in the the Mackay and Stone report, their statement can only be interpreted as concluding that a signficant UK shale gas indutry is incompatible with the UK\u2019s commitment to maintaining temperatures below 2\u00b0C (i.e. fitting within the IPCC\u2019s budgets for a likley chance of 2\u00b0C).<\/p>\n

This challenging statement is reinforeced in Andrew Alpin\u2019s (Professor of Unconventional Petroleum) measured response to the EAC report on fracking.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe development of new fossil fuel<\/em> resources such as shale gas is broadly incompatible with the UK’s stated commitment to major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0 However, any moratorium on shale gas exploration must go hand-in-hand with an equally strong commitment to reducing imports of coal, oil and gas.\u00a0 Given that fossil fuels dominate current energy consumption, this also implies a massive increase in nuclear and renewables, which will be both challenging and expensive.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

**********<\/p>\n

The notes below provide a little more detail to the above headline statements\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A pivotal point to consider before passing any judgment on whether or not UK shale gas is compatible with UK\u2019s climate change obligations is to recognise that the UK holds two very different positions on its mitigation responsibilities \u2013 with very different carbon budgets.<\/p>\n

UK\u2019s weak domestic carbon budget (high chance of exceeding 2\u00b0C)
\n<\/strong>The UK\u2019s domestic position under the Climate Change Act, is for a 63% of exceeding 2\u00b0C; global emissions reaching a peak between 2016 and 2020, including for China, with the rest of the poorer nations reaching a peak collectively just a few years later. Moreover, it assumes that the wealthier industrialised nations take no responsibility for international emissions from deforestation \u2013 despite most having already deforested their own nations. Similarly the process emissions from producing cement for poorer nations to construct the infrastructure necessary for their industrialisation are also neglected \u2013 despite the UK (and other wealthier nations) already having established infrastructures. Furthermore, the UK\u2019s domestic targets are premised on highly optimistic assumptions about the cumulative emissions budget of non-greenhouse gas emissions from food. If all this is considered reasonable, then there is a small and probably short-lived opportunity for UK shale gas development. However, even with such highly partisan assumptions, by the time significant shale gas reserves are developed (assuming they exist) there is a real risk that the accompanying infrastructure could rapidly become a stranded asset \u2013 even under the UK\u2019s weak (i.e. not 2\u00b0C) domestic carbon budgets.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

UK\u2019s domestic carbon budget for a\u00a0\u201clikely\u201d<\/em> chance of staying below 2\u00b0C
\n<\/strong>By contrast, taking the previous and current Prime Ministers at their word, then the UK\u2019s international climate change commitment is framed by the UK making its <\/span>equitable<\/em> contribution to <\/span>staying below<\/em> a 2\u00b0C rise (explicit in agreements from the Copenhagen Accord to the Camp David Declaration). Consequently, the UK\u2019s domestic targets, premised as they are on both a very inequitable distribution of emissions and a 63% of exceeding 2\u00b0C, are not only incompatible with, but are indeed far weaker than, our international obligations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Borrowing from the IPCC\u2019s taxonomy of \u2018likelihoods\u2019 the language of the agreements to which the UK is a signatory relate to, at most, a 10% chance of <\/span>exceeding<\/em> 2\u00b0C (with a carbon budget approximately half of that for a 63% chance of <\/span>exceeding<\/em> 2\u00b0C). However, given where we are in 2015, both our earlier [1] and ongoing analysis typically adopts a much laxer probability of between 66% and 50% chance of <\/span>staying below<\/em> 2\u00b0C (concluding that this is now the best that can be achieved). We assume a global peak in emissions soon after 2020, with poorer nations, on average, peaking by 2025 and with deforestation and cement emissions accounted for as a global overhead. Our work argues that, though challenging, these assumptions are much more appropriate than the unsupportable starting point of the Government\u2019s analysis. Allying our assumptions with the PM\u2019s express commitment on 2\u00b0C (i.e. a more equitable division of the IPCC\u2019s budgets for 66%-50% of staying below 2\u00b0C) delivers an uncompromising and unambiguous conclusion. There is no emissions space for shale gas in the UK\u2019s national carbon budgets and emission pathways \u2013 and consequently, the only appropriate place for shale gas remains\u00a0in the ground.<\/span><\/p>\n

[1] Anderson, K., and Bows., A., 2011, Beyond dangerous climate change: emission pathways for a new world, <\/span>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A<\/em>, 369, 20-44, DOI:10.1098\/rsta.2010.0290<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>The arguments outlined in this response are similar to those developed in a previous letter to the Prime Minister on the appropriate EU 2030 level of emission reductions (for a 2\u00b0C framing of climate change);\u00a0<\/em>Letter to the PM on how the 2 degrees Celsius target demands an\u00a080% cut in EU\u00a0emissions by 2030<\/a><\/p>\n

*******<\/p>\n

For further commentary on shale gas, see:<\/p>\n

Fracking – a price worth paying?
\n<\/a>A debate between Prof. Paul Younger and I on the arguments for and against fracking in\u00a0<\/span>the<\/span>\u00a0UK<\/span><\/p>\n

Response to the House of Lords shale gas report\u00a0<\/a>
\nA response arguing that the Lords report chose eloquence over analysis when addressing issues of climate change<\/span><\/p>\n

Tyndall submission to the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs<\/a>
\npp.498-504<\/p>\n

UK commitments on climate change incompatible with a national shale gas industry<\/a>
\nA brief\u00a0comment on the recent Total Oil announcement of its plans to invest in UK shale & the PM\u2019s and Energy Minister\u2019s responses.<\/p>\n

Tyndall submission to the Energy and Climate Change committee.<\/a>
\nOctober 2012<\/p>\n

UK unveils Office of unconventional gas & oil \u2013 another nail in the climate change coffin<\/a>
\nA quick response to the inception of the government\u2019s Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil<\/p>\n

Shale gas: an updated assessment of the environmental & climate change impacts\u00a0<\/a>
\nA \u00a0more detailed account of the climate change issues is given in chapter 3<\/p>\n

Has US shale gas\u00a0reduced\u00a0CO2 emissions?<\/a>
\nA report suggesting shale gas is likely to add to global fossil fuel reserves and not be a substitute for coal.<\/p>\n

Shale gas and avoiding dangerous climate change<\/a>
\nA\u00a0slide show on shale gas recently presented at a Chatham House shale gas summit and later at an \u2018all party parliamentary group on unconventional oil and gas\u2019 seminar (in the House of Commons)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why UK shale gas is incompatible with the 2 degree Celsius framing of dangerous climate change<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_s2mail":"yes"},"categories":[6,43],"tags":[],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":5}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1428"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1440,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions\/1440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}