There is little recognition by either side that currentpolicies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are inadequate for dealing with thethreat that they pose. It is the coal-fueled growth of countries like China andIndia that generates much of these emissions. Unless a cheap, rapidlydeployable substitute fuel is found for coal, then it will be next toimpossible to safely rein in rising carbon dioxide levels around the world.
The International Energy Agency has made it clear that,under current energy policies, the door is closing on our attempts to containthe carbon-driven rise in global temperatures to within two degrees Celsius bythe middle of the century. In fact, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions fromburning fossil fuels reached a record high of 31.6 gigatons in 2011. Withemissions rising by one gigaton per year, it appears the temperature-increasetarget will most likely be missed.
The shale gas revolution could be the means of blunting therise of carbon dioxide emissions and give new hope for staying within the twodegrees Celsius scenario. This resource is widely dispersed across the planet,cheap to develop and offers many of the same energy benefits as coal. Ifexploited properly, it could replace coal within a couple of decades as aprimary fuel.
By developing shale gas as a replacement fuel for coal weretrieve the prospect of blunting “ and possibly reversing “ the upward climbof carbon dioxide emissions. Shale gas emits 50 percent less carbon dioxidethan coal, and so if countries like China and India made the switch on a largescale, then we have a chance to reset the trajectory of global carbon dioxideemissions.
A widespread turn to the use of shale gas would give theplanet precious time to develop other, renewable solutions to further lower ouroutput of carbon dioxide. One only has to look to China to see the strongpotential of this solution. With the world’s largest shale gas resources, thecountry has set out a vast gas development program in its latest five-yeareconomic plan. Output would rise from 6.5 billion cubic meters of shale gas by2015 to 100 billion cubic meters by 2020. And if China can produce that much by2020, is there any reason to think it cannot pump out 800 billion cubic metersby 2030?
Such a development program would be similar in scale to thatundertaken in the United States, which has seen shale gas rise from 1 percentof gas production in 2001 to 37 percent last year.
The United States could play a key role in encouraging Chinaand other developing nations to switch from coal to shale gas. The UnitedStates could also lead the way in creating a credible, alternative climatechange strategy in which the use of shale gas becomes the driver of radicalcuts in carbon dioxide emissions over the short and medium term. Such astrategy would include establishing a series of Shale Gas Trusts around theworld to disseminate information, know-how and assist in building regulatorycapacity. A second part of the strategy would press for the gradual suppressionof coal use and the global trade in coal, with compensation outlays for thecoal industry as a whole.
Suppressing the production and trade in coal would be vitalfor three reasons. First, it would demonstrate the West’s commitment toreplacing coal. Second, we would be able to transfer the social, regulatory andbusiness know-how to other nations to encourage coal suppression. Third, itwould push up the price of coal to encourage states to switch from coal toshale gas.
Successful worldwide cooperation in suppressing coal couldprovide the basis for building a credible international coalition to furtherdecarbonise the energy system beyond shale gas and into a fully renewableeconomy.
Alan Riley is a professor of energy law at TheCity Law School at City University London
