Approaches in contrast

March 28, 2014
Two approaches to climate change contrast instructively in the US. One of them reflects the cost-blind absolutism fast dismantling support for programs aimed at lowering emissions of greenhouse gases.

Two approaches to climate change contrast instructively in the US. One of them reflects the cost-blind absolutism fast dismantling support for programs aimed at lowering emissions of greenhouse gases. The other accommodates economic imperatives and uses collaboration to pursue important goals.

The approaches relate to methane, which with climate change is part of the problem yet also part of the solution. Among greenhouse gases largely attributable to human activity, methane ranks second behind carbon dioxide in prevalence and is 21 times as potent as CO2 by weight as a warming agent. But its combustion yields less CO2 per unit of heat energy than that of heavier hydrocarbons. Methane thus is a problem when emitted into the atmosphere but a solution when burned instead of oil or coal. A constructive approach to methane is to use more but leak less.

US progress

With commendable results, the US has in fact been doing precisely that. According to the Energy Information Administration, consumption of natural gas during 2008-12 increased 9%. Over the same period, consumption of coal fell 21%. Meanwhile, reports the Environmental Protection Agency, emissions of methane fell by 6% and of CO2 by 9%. Displacement of coal by natural gas in the generation of electricity was an important factor in the CO2 decline.

The 5-year drop in methane emissions coincided with a 15% increase in production of natural gas, indicating the effectiveness of efforts by producers and transporters to mitigate leaks. Those measures were voluntary. Now, cooperation among gas producers, environmentalists, and state officials has produced the country's first program to directly control emissions of methane by regulation.

The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission last month changed rules governing oil and gas work to add methane and ethane to controls on emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The move includes operational changes such as equipment retrofits and emission cuts during well maintenance. The Environmental Defense Fund hailed the initiative as "an example of the kind of progress that's possible when businesses and environmentalists work together to find solutions." It said the rules reflect its recommendations and those made by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Encana Corp., and Noble Energy.

The contrasting approach appeared in a letter to President Barack Obama from 16 environmental groups—EDF not among them—opposing permits for construction of LNG export facilities. The groups didn't object to surface disturbance or emissions from the proposed plants. They instead targeted the development of natural gas resources. "We call on you to reverse course on this plan and commit instead to keeping most of our nation's fossil fuel reserves in the ground, in line with the recommendations of most of the world's leading climate scientists."

This is the absolutist approach—all or nothing, whatever the cost. It's impracticable. Yet it influences debate on issues such as energy subsidies, the Keystone XL pipeline, and hydraulic fracturing. And where it dominates policy-making, mainly in Europe, it has raised energy costs and fostered a strong and growing political backlash.

The campaign against LNG exports, motivated so explicitly by opposition to the production of natural gas, is especially short-sighted. It rejects a role for the lightest hydrocarbon in lowering the carbon intensity of energy use. And it seeks to foreclose economic benefits available from resource development and low energy costs. Energy producers and consumers less single-minded than the letter-writers about climate change have reason to view the proposal as politically larcenous. Europeans in growing numbers see governmental support of expensive, nonfossil energy that way.

Value of collaboration

Colorado's new rules demonstrate the value of collaboration and the hope of achieving business and environmental goals simultaneously. They will lower emissions of a forceful greenhouse gas while boosting an affordable energy form able to lower CO2 emissions. The absolutist approach would not have tolerated them or the attendant benefits.

Too often, the leave-it-in-the-ground approach hurts people and contradicts itself. This is not a formula for enduring political success.