Nice try Mr Taylor, but Australia’s gas exports don’t help solve climate change



Energy Minister Angus Taylor has sought to downplay quarterly figures showing Australia’s emissions are still rising, attributing the result to the production of gas for export.
AAP

Tim Baxter, University of Melbourne

The latest report card on Australia’s greenhouse gas production is the same old news: emissions are up again. We’ve heard it before, but the news should never stop being confronting.

It’s 2019. The first assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which outlined the serious consequences of unmitigated climate change, was released the better part of 30 years ago. But Australia is still going backwards.

Emissions from one of the sunniest and windiest countries on the planet, blessed with every possible advantage when it comes to emissions reduction potential, are still rising. How do you justify that?




Read more:
Want to beat climate change? Protect our natural forests


Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor.
AAP

Energy and Emission Reduction Minister Angus Taylor tried to justify it by blaming gas. He said if you ignore the greenhouse gases released when producing gas for export, Australia is doing well because emissions in the March quarter fell by 0.3%.

It’s a bit like suggesting that if you ignore the cancer, smoking is completely fine. It’s untrue, and ignores the bigger part of the problem.

How does producing gas for export release fossil fuel emissions?

A mammoth share of the coal and gas that Australia produces goes to the international market.

The combustion of these fuels is not counted in Australia’s ledger, though.
This is because the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change counts emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the country where they are burned.

A protest sign at the site of a proposed liquid natural gas plant at James Price Point in Broome.
AAP

But climate change is unconcerned with our accounting rules. And Australia is the fifth largest contributor to climate change in terms of fossil fuels extracted.

But the extraction process itself also releases fossil fuels in Australia’s backyard, both through the energy used in the extraction and through leaks. These emissions are included on Australia’s ledger.

Gas is principally made up of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30-80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. When it leaks, it has an outsized impact on the climate – and these emissions are growing fast.

Putting our gas emissions in perspective

It is disingenuous to use the production of gas exports to explain away Australia’s poor performance on emissions reduction.

In the 2018 financial year, around one in seven tonnes of greenhouse gas emitted from Australia was released in the process of making even more greenhouse gas, from both gas and coal extraction.

That means that six in every seven tonnes of greenhouse gas Australia emits can largely be attributed to the the total absence of a national climate policy.

Author supplied.
Data source: DoEE, Australia’s Emissions Projections 2018
Author supplied.
Data source: DoEE, Australia’s Emissions Projections 2018

This policy failure has big implications. Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement says the world must reach net-zero emissions over the entire period from 2050 to 2100. (And the IPCC says emissions must come down even faster than that if planetary warming is to stay below the critical 1.5℃ threshold).

Even if, disregarding export gas production, Australia cut emissions by 0.3% a year, at that rate net-zero emissions won’t be reached for another 333 years.

So while fossil fuel extraction is making things worse, our emissions elsewhere are hardly able to reach the net zero goal in the Paris agreement.




Read more:
Australia should explore nuclear waste before we try domestic nuclear power


Gas is not the silver bullet for any other nation

The minister and his department also made much of the idea that our gas is reducing emissions overseas. The quarterly report even contained a “special topic” talking up the benefits of Australia’s gas exports.

The logic is that by exporting gas, which is allegedly cleaner than coal, we are replacing a high emitting source with a relatively low emitting source. That logic does not hold and is not scientifically robust.

First, and most obviously, Australia exports massive amounts of coal as well as gas. We are responsible for one-fifth of the world’s thermal coal exports and more than one-half of the world’s metallurgical coal exports. It is talking out both sides of your mouth to suggest that we are reducing worldwide emissions because we are responsible for almost a quarter of the world’s exported gas, while we simultaneously export a massive amount of coal.

Origin Energy’s Australia Pacific liquefied natural gas facility at Curtis Island in north Queensland.
AAP

Second, the department and Mr Taylor relied heavily on a study by the CSIRO’s Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) to talk up the relative benefits of our gas exports. That study, a life-cycle assessment of the emissions from Curtis Island’s liquified natural gas processing facilities, expressly avoided testing the assumption that our gas is in fact replacing coal overseas.

We may not know the whole story, but we do know it is not true in one of the largest purchasers of Australian gas, Japan. Since the Fukushima accident in 2011 took much of Japan’s zero-emissions nuclear energy out of the mix, it has been replaced by Australian gas, which is far worse for the climate.

Third, even if our gas is substituting coal, the benefits are very small. The same GISERA study indicated that “climate benefits of natural gas replacing coal are lost where fugitive emissions [leaking gas] … are greater than 3%”.

Readers might remember this apparent example of fugitive emissions in Australia. The video shows former New South Wales Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham setting fire to the Condamine River in 2016.

Former NSW MP Jeremy Buckingham sets the Condamine River on fire.

It burned because of methane bubbling up through it, purportedly from nearby unconventional gas extraction. These emissions, the result of leaks through natural fractures in the Earth, are difficult to predict and model. They are not accurately measured in Australia, and may make gas far worse for the climate than even coal.

Even if the results of all this uncertainty come out in favour of gas, limiting global warming requires that we urgently stop burning both coal and gas. While there are substantial proven reserves around the world, much of this will have to remain unburned if we hope to avoid the worst of climate change.

The evidence of climate change is increasingly clear, yet Australia’s emissions continue to increase. Our political leaders are spinning the data and failing to act, putting our children’s future, our economy and the natural environment at risk.The Conversation

Tim Baxter, Fellow – Melbourne Law School; Senior Researcher – Climate Council; Associate – Australian-German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Expanding gas mining threatens our climate, water and health


Melissa Haswell, Queensland University of Technology and David Shearman, University of Adelaide

Australia, like its competitors Qatar, Canada and the United States, aspires to become the world’s largest exporter of gas, arguing this helps importing nations reduce their greenhouse emissions by replacing coal.

Yes, burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal. Yet the “fugitive emissions” – the methane that escapes, often unmeasured, during production, distribution and combustion of gas – is a much more potent short-term greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.




Read more:
Who gets to decide whether we dig up coal and gas?


A special report issued by the World Health Organisation after the 2018 Katowice climate summit urged governments to take “specific commitments to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants” such as methane, so as to boost the chances of staying with the Paris Agreement’s ambitious 1.5℃ global warming limit.

Current gas expansion plans in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, where another 2,500 coal seam gas wells have been approved, reveal little impetus to deliver on this. Harvesting all of WA’s gas reserves would emit about 4.4 times more carbon dioxide equivalent than Australia’s total domestic energy-related emissions budget.

Gas as a cause of local ill-health

There are not only global, but also significant local and regional risks to health and well-being associated with unconventional gas mining. Our comprehensive review examines the current state of the evidence.

Since our previous reviews (see here, here and here), more than 1,400 further peer-reviewed articles have been published, helping to clarify how expanding unconventional gas production across Australia risks our health, well-being, climate, water and food security.




Read more:
Chief Scientist CSG report leaves health concerns unanswered


This research has been possible because, since 2010, 17.6 million US citizens’ homes have been within a mile (1.6km) of gas wells and fracking operations. Furthermore, some US research funding is independent of the gas industry, whereas much of Australia’s comparatively small budget for research in this area is channelled through an industry-funded CSIRO research hub.

Key medical findings

There is evidence that living close to unconventional gas mining activities is linked to a wide range of health conditions, including psychological and social problems.

The US literature now consistently reports higher frequencies of low birth weight, extreme premature births, higher-risk pregnancies and some birth defects, in pregnancies spent closer to unconventional gas mining activities, compared with pregnancies further away. No parallel studies have so far been published in Australia.

US studies have found increased indicators of cardiovascular disease, higher rates of sinus disorders, fatigue and migraines, and hospitalisations for asthma, heart, neurological, kidney and urinary tract conditions, and childhood blood cancer near shale gas operations.

Exploratory studies in Queensland found higher rates of hospitalisation for circulatory, immune system and respiratory disorders in children and adults in the Darling Downs region where coal seam gas mining is concentrated.

Water exposure

Chemicals found in gas mining wastewater include volatile organic compounds such as benzene, phenols and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, as well as heavy metals, radioactive materials, and endocrine-disrupting substances – compounds that can affect the body’s hormones.

This wastewater can find its way into aquifers and surface water through spillage, injection procedures, and leakage from wastewater ponds.

The environmental safety of treated wastewater and the vast quantities of crystalline salt produced is unclear, raising questions about cumulative long-term impacts on soil productivity and drinking water security.

Concern about the unconventional gas industry’s use of large quantities of water has increased since 2013. Particularly relevant to Australian agriculture and remote communities is research showing an unexpected but consistent increase in the “water footprint” of gas wells across all six major shale oil and gas mining regions of the US from 2011 to 2016. Maximum increases in water use per well (7.7-fold higher, Permian deposits, New Mexico and Texas) and wastewater production per well (14-fold, Eagle Ford deposits, Texas) occurred where water stress is very high. The drop in water efficiency was tied to a drop in gas prices.

Air exposure

Research on the potentially harmful substances emitted into the atmosphere during water removal, gas production and processing, wastewater handling and transport has expanded. These substances include fine particulate pollutants, ground-level ozone, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, diesel exhaust and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Measuring concentrations and human exposures to these pollutants is complicated, as they vary widely and unpredictably in both time and location. This makes it difficult to prove a definitive causal link to human health impacts, despite the mounting circumstantial evidence.




Read more:
Why Australians need a national environment protection agency to safeguard their health


Our review found substantially more evidence of what we suspected in 2013: that gas mining poses significant threats to the global climate, to food and water supplies, and to health and well-being.

On this basis, Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) has reinforced its position that no new gas developments should occur in Australia, and that governments should increase monitoring, regulation and management of existing wells and gas production and transport infrastructure.The Conversation

Melissa Haswell, Professor of Health, Safety and Environment, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland University of Technology and David Shearman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why New Zealand should not explore for more natural gas reserves



File 20180226 120776 1r3hubl.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The New Zealand government is introducing legislation to become zero-carbon by 2050, but will consider new permits for coal mining, offshore oil drilling and fracking on a case-by-case basis.
from shutter stock.com, CC BY-ND

Ralph Sims, Massey University

New Zealand’s new coalition government has committed to introducing zero-carbon legislation that would set the country on a course to be carbon neutral by 2050.

At the same time, it is not ruling out new permits for coal mining, offshore oil drilling and fracking during a transition away from fossil fuels.

Natural gas is often touted as a “bridging fuel” to cut the use of coal for heat and power while moving towards a low-carbon economy. Also, this week’s report by the crown research institute Scion shows that New Zealand could build a renewable low-carbon transport fuels industry by switching to biofuels instead of natural gas. Developing new gas resources in New Zealand is a shortsighted strategy that could lead to stranded assets.




Read more:
2050 climate targets: nations are playing the long game in fighting global warming


Carbon budget

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a long-lived greenhouse gas. Each molecule released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels remains there for hundreds of years. Analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that once we reach a total of 2,900 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO₂) in the atmosphere, the planet will likely exceed the internationally agreed target to keep warming below two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

More than 1,900 Gt CO₂ have already been emitted since the late 19th century. We are currently adding around 33 Gt CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion and 5 Gt CO₂ from deforestation every year. The atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has now surged to more than 403 parts per million, the highest in millions of years. The planet is already around one degree warmer than the average pre-industrial temperature.

This graphic shows that we have already used up around two-thirds of the total carbon budget to avoid exceeding a two-degree average temperature rise (with a 66% chance).
IPCC, Working Group 1, 2013, CC BY-ND

The remaining carbon budget, with a 66% chance of staying below the two-degree target, is now at about 800 Gt CO₂. At the current business-as-usual rate of fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, the total budget will be exceeded within 20 to 25 years.




Read more:
Fossil fuel emissions hit record high after unexpected growth: Global Carbon Budget 2017


By then, we will have used up around two-fifths of the known global reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. The remaining three-fifths will need to stay in the ground.

Gas as a transition fuel

Natural gas is described as a “transition fuel” that cuts the use of coal. This argument, and the case for providing greater energy security, is being used to justify exploration for deep sea oil and gas in New Zealand waters.

Displacing coal by burning conventional natural gas does indeed produce lower emissions, while providing the same heat or electricity services. A coal-fired power station produces around 900-1100 g CO₂/kWh generated; a gas-fired plant produces around 450-500 g CO₂/kWh. By way of comparison, a geothermal plant varies with the field but can emit up to 50 g CO₂/kWh and emissions from other renewable energy plants vary widely with the circumstances but tend to be much lower.

However, on a life-cycle basis, any carbon dioxide reduction benefits would be partially negated by leakage of methane (CH₄), the main component of natural gas. Leakage is inevitable during the extraction, distribution and use of natural gas. It is difficult to determine the level of leakage, but it is more certain that emissions from coal or gas plants are significantly higher than from a renewable energy plant of similar generation output.

Natural gas has the potential to extend the time before the carbon budget is used up, assuming it displaces coal that would then be left in the ground. But the use of gas cannot deliver the deep cuts in emissions that will be required to stay below two degrees.

Energy security and fossil fuel subsidies

Many nations, including New Zealand, aim to improve their energy security by shifting to more indigenous fossil fuel resources to reduce their dependence on imports and widely fluctuating prices. Exploring for more gas to meet local demands at contracted prices may make good political sense in the short term, but it exacerbates climate change.

Fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption is widely subsidised by many governments. The International Energy Agency estimated the value of consumer subsidies in 2016 was over US$260 billion.

Conversely, divestment away from fossil fuel companies is growing worldwide. For example, New York City is not only intending to divest US$5 billion of its holdings in fossil fuel assets, but also plans to sue the major oil companies over their contribution to climate change.

New Zealand’s economy without more gas

In New Zealand, natural gas is used to generate electricity and heat for industries, to produce methanol (mainly for export) and other petrochemical products such as urea. It also supplies around 277,000 domestic and commercial consumers in the North Island.

Currently around 1,200,000 tonnes per year (t/yr) of coal are consumed in New Zealand, mainly for heat and electricity, emitting around 2.6 Mt CO₂/yr. If all existing coal plants and heating systems were converted to gas, around 1.3 Mt CO₂/yr of emissions would be avoided. This would contribute a little towards the 20 Mt CO₂-eq/yr of emissions reductions needed to meet New Zealand’s current 2030 target under the Paris Agreement.

However, given the Government’s target to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century, gas will ultimately need to be entirely phased out together with coal and oil products. Therefore, the overall aims for New Zealand should be to:

  • use our existing reserves of natural gas wisely in order to gain maximum long-term economic benefits by maximising the return on investments already made, as well as reducing our annual CO₂ emissions by displacing coal and minimising methane leakage

  • invest significantly in research and development in sustainable energy, including low-carbon and economically viable alternatives for the current uses of existing gas supplies

  • clarify and quantify any fossil fuel producer and consumer subsidies and remove them in the near future

  • avoid the temptation to explore and develop new gas resources even if they appear to deliver short-term economic benefits; and

  • The Conversationinvest in renewable energy technologies, including biofuels, as long as they are produced from crop and forest residues and purpose-grown forests on marginal land, as identified in the Scion report.

Ralph Sims, Professor, School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Scotland: Natural Gas Leak in the North Sea


The link below is to an article reporting on another leaking ocean well, this time in the North Sea off Scotland. Owner of the well, ‘Total,’ has said that it may take 6 months to stop the leak.

For more visit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-total-gasleak-idUSBRE82Q0G720120327