IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v46y2012icp452-459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”

Author

Listed:
  • Stephenson, Eleanor
  • Doukas, Alexander
  • Shaw, Karena

Abstract

Natural gas is widely considered to be the crucial “bridging fuel” in the transition to the low-carbon energy systems necessary to mitigate climate change. This paper develops a case study of the shale gas industry in British Columbia (BC), Canada to evaluate this assumption. We find that the transition fuel argument for gas development in BC is unsubstantiated by the best available evidence. Emissions factors for shale gas and LNG remain poorly characterized and contested in the academic literature, and context-specific factors have significant impacts on the lifecycle emissions of shale gas but have not been evaluated. Moreover, while the province has attempted to frame natural gas development within its ambitious climate change policy, this framing misrepresents substantive policy on gas production. The “transition fuel” and “climate solution” labels applied to development by the BC provincial government risk legitimizing carbon-intensive gas development. We argue that policy makers in BC and beyond should abandon the “transition fuel” characterization of natural gas. Instead, decision making about natural gas development should proceed through transparent engagement with the best available evidence to ensure that natural gas lives up to its best potential in supporting a transition to a low-carbon energy system.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:452-459
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512003102
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence Cathles & Larry Brown & Milton Taam & Andrew Hunter, 2012. "A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 525-535, July.
    2. Charles Davis, 2012. "The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 177-191, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Holahan, Robert & Arnold, Gwen, 2013. "An institutional theory of hydraulic fracturing policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 127-134.
    2. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Makena Coffman & Paul Bernstein & Sherilyn Wee & Clarice Schafer, 2017. "Economic and GHG impacts of natural gas for Hawaii," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 519-536, July.
    4. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    5. Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    6. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    7. Vassiliki Anastasiadou & Anna Samnioti & Renata Kanakaki & Vassilis Gaganis, 2022. "Acid Gas Re-Injection System Design Using Machine Learning," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Pfoser, Sarah & Schauer, Oliver & Costa, Yasel, 2018. "Acceptance of LNG as an alternative fuel: Determinants and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 259-267.
    9. Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    10. Monica Santillan Vera & Lilia Garcia Manrique & Isabel Rodriguez Pena & Angel de la Vega Navarro, 2021. "Drivers of Electricity GHG Emissions and the Role of Natural Gas in Mexican Energy Transition," Working Paper Series 1021, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Neetzow, Paul, 2021. "The effects of power system flexibility on the efficient transition to renewable generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    12. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Jacquet, Jeffrey B., 2012. "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 677-688.
    14. Thi Thu Huong Nguyen & Zhi Yang & Ninh Nguyen & Lester W. Johnson & Tuan Khanh Cao, 2019. "Greenwash and Green Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Green Skepticism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, May.
    15. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Peters, Jeffrey C., 2017. "Natural gas and spillover from the US Clean Power Plan into the Paris Agreement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 41-47.
    3. Steven Nelson & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2021. "End of the (Pipe)Line? Understanding how States Manage the Risks of Oil and Gas Wells," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 203-221, March.
    4. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    5. Scott, Ryan P., 2018. "Should we call the neighbors? Voluntary deliberation and citizen complaints about oil and gas drilling," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 258-272.
    6. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    7. Healey, Stephen & Jaccard, Mark, 2016. "Abundant low-cost natural gas and deep GHG emissions reductions for the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 241-253.
    8. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    9. Deserai A Crow & Elizabeth A Albright & Elizabeth Koebele, 2016. "Environmental rulemaking across states: Process, procedural access, and regulatory influence," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1222-1240, November.
    10. Hannibal, Bryce & Portney, Kent, 2020. "The impact of water scarcity on support for hydraulic fracturing regulation: A water-energy nexus study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    11. Gwen Arnold, 2022. "A threat-centered theory of policy entrepreneurship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 23-45, March.
    12. Hausfather, Zeke, 2015. "Bounding the climate viability of natural gas as a bridge fuel to displace coal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 286-294.
    13. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.
    14. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    15. Bistline, John E., 2015. "Electric sector capacity planning under uncertainty: Climate policy and natural gas in the US," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 236-251.
    16. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    17. Bugden, Dylan & Kay, David & Glynn, Russell & Stedman, Richard, 2016. "The bundle below: Understanding unconventional oil and gas development through analysis of lease agreements," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-219.
    18. Khakpoor, Nima & Mostafavi, Ehsan & Mahinpey, Nader & De la Hoz Siegler, Hector, 2019. "Oxygen transport capacity and kinetic study of ilmenite ores for methane chemical-looping combustion," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 329-337.
    19. Joshua C. Hall & Christopher Shultz & E. Frank Stephenson, 2018. "The political economy of local fracking bans," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(2), pages 397-408, April.
    20. Adam Mayer, 2018. "Community economic identity and colliding treadmills in oil and gas governance," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:452-459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.