Dirty Energy Lobby Wins In EU – Shale Gas Now Considered “Green Energy” [2]
In a headline that would appear to be
ripped off the pages of The Onion, The
Guardian UK this
week reported “Gas
rebranded as green energy by EU [8].”
After billions
of dollars spent [9] in
lobbying efforts over the years, the dirty
energy industry in the European Union has
managed to convince leaders that natural gas
– produced from both traditional extraction
and from fracking – is a green, clean,
renewable resource, no different than solar
or wind power.
From The
Guardian [8]:
Energy from gas power stations has been rebranded as a green, low-carbon source of power by a €80bn European Union programme, in a triumph of the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry lobby over renewable forms of power.
In a secret document seen by the Guardian, a large slice of billions of euros of funds that are supposed to be devoted to research and development into renewables such as solar and wave power are likely to be diverted instead to subsidising the development of the well-established fossil fuel.
The news comes as a report from the respected International Energy Agency predicted a "golden age for gas" with global production of "unconventional" sources of gas (notably shale gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking') tripling by 2035.
In the EU, the shale gas lobby has been working for more than 18 months to get the “green energy” label in attempts to get their hands on renewable energy subsidies, and brand themselves as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. They have also been touting that they are less costly than other forms of “green energy.”
The re-branding will be a huge boon to the
shale gas industry, as EU
leaders and member countries have set goals
of significantly reducing their carbon
levels over the next four decades. Leaders
had been looking to invest in other forms of
green energy like wind and solar, and would
have spent heavily on building
infrastructure to make these methods viable.
Instead, they can now turn to shale gas,
which will pull money away from truly clean
sources of energy, and put it into the
pockets of Big Oil fracking companies.
The most important part of the story is the
fact that the determination of shale gas as
“green,” along with the industry’s claims
that it is the cheapest alternative
available, are both based
on a false report from the industry
[9].
Gas lobbyists have been meeting with
politicians and other leaders throughout
Europe over the last few months to push
their erroneous report, a move that has paid
off both politically and financially for the
industry. As The
Guardian reported in April [9] of this
year:
A new gas-fired power station would be expected to have a useful life of about 25 to 40 years. So although switching from coal to gas would help countries meet their short term emissions targets, in the longer term they would be left with fleets of redundant, high-emitting fossil fuel power stations – unless they were fitted with expensive technology to capture and store the carbon dioxide underground. However, this technology is still unproven and it is likely to be decades before it can be widely used. The economics of the technology are highly uncertain, and renewable companies argue that the assumptions used by the European Gas Advocacy Forum to show that the fossil fuel is cheaper than renewables do not stand up to scrutiny.
Shale gas is controversial because it requires large amounts of water to release it from rocks, and the use of potentially dangerous chemicals that could leach into the water supply. Numerous cases in the US, which has led the way in releasing gas from shale rocks using fracking technology, have shown evidence of contamination and dangerous leaks of methane.
Further doubt has been thrown on the industry's claims by a newly released academic study from Cornell University which found that generating electricity from shale gas – because of the difficulty in extracting it from rocks – produces at least as much carbon dioxide as coal-fired power, and perhaps more.
To put it plainly, the actual burning of
shale gas might release less carbon than
burning coal, and it may be cheaper on the
surface than other renewables, that is only
if you ignore all of the other economic,
health, and environmental impactss that are
required to make shale gas viable for use.
But when it comes to financial matters, the
only thing that matters to elected officials
– no matter which country they live in – is
the amount of money an industry is willing
to put into their personal pockets and
reelection campaigns.
In reality, it’s the rest of us who pay the
price for the poor policy choices enabled by
elaborate industry misinformation efforts.
