Impact of greenhouse gas extraction will outweigh benefits

A gas flare burns at a fracking site in the United States. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa will be far more widespread and enduring than the local benefits of another extractive industry, says the writer. File picture: Les Stone/Reuters

A gas flare burns at a fracking site in the United States. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa will be far more widespread and enduring than the local benefits of another extractive industry, says the writer. File picture: Les Stone/Reuters

Published Jan 15, 2017

Share

New gas development on the scale being proposed by the government and big energy companies will not provide net public benefit, writes Richard Worthington.

In a piece recently published in The Sunday Independent Dispatches regarding the challenges of shale-gas development, Buyelwa Payi argued that “it will not be a land of milk and honey”.

The article gave two sides of a contentious topic but came to an erroneous conclusion that “South Africa has an opportunity to do the project safely and securely for the benefit of everyone”.

Even if the government can convince us that fracking is safe and will not be a water security problem, new gas development on the scale being proposed by the government and big energy companies will not provide net public benefit.

This is because the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions will be far more widespread and enduring than the local benefits of another extractive industry.

This would be clear if our national energy planning were guided by the elaboration of our climate change policy, as required by the 2011 White Paper.

Natural gas - the fossil fuel, as opposed to gas from bio-digestion of renewable biomass - is at best half as bad as coal from a climate change perspective, which is why it should be restricted to no more than a bridging role in moving to a carbon-neutral energy system, which South Africa will have to do by 2050 (with more industrialised countries doing so much sooner).

To determine the extent of gas infrastructure investments that may be economically feasible in such a context requires that the government set clear medium- and long-term emissions reduction objectives.

Mitigation objectives consistent with the global goal that South Africa has signed through the Paris Agreement - holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C - are necessary for all energy development planning, but an appropriate role for gas is one of the more complex questions.

Phasing out coal and maximising renewable energy use are imperatives that are clear to all but those invested in the energy incumbency, but scoping the role of gas in a transition to zero-carbon energy is more dependent on the extent of emissions reductions we seek to achieve (with international support).

Emissions for unconventional gas production, such as fracking deep-shale formations or coal-beds, are significantly higher than traditional extraction and fugitive methane (leaks) from some supply chains which are in the region of 2-3 percent, resulting in life-cycle emissions equal to or greater than from the use of coal.

Promoting the idea of “gas reindustrialisation” - a phrase attributed to the minister of energy and an aspiration reflected in the recommendations of the Integrated Energy Plan published in the Government Gazette of November 25 - premised on large-scale domestic shale gas supply is not consistent with achieving the global mitigation goal.

If the government had set the Desired Emissions Reductions Outcomes required by the 2011 White Paper, with medium- and long-term outcome goals for 2030 and 2050 consistent with the global goal, then robust and integrated energy planning processes could investigate a transitional role for readily available gas that would provide a net-positive value proposition for society as a whole.

Instead, the Integrated Energy Plan published for public comment - open until mid-February 2017 - endorses the pursuit of all energy development opportunities, while claiming consistency with climate change response policy.

It is perhaps not surprising that Payi ignores the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in discussing the prospects for shale-gas development, in the absence of an active inter-ministerial committee on climate change that was supposed to ensure the setting of outcome goals.

Nevertheless, proclaiming that large-scale shale gas or new fossil fuel development would be “for the benefit of everyone” without acknowledging the implications for accelerating climate change indicates a partial perspective.

Whether such disregard in discussion of public benefits and the social value proposition of new fossil fuel development is indicative of an indifference to the poor majority, or of a failure to understand the consequences of more emissions, is a question that needs to be put to those promoting shale gas as “a potential game-changer”.

There are some rather unbelievable projections of potential job creation in the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP), while the issue of climate change is relegated to one indicator of environmental performance, and socio-economic impact analysis is focused on gross domestic product and economic modelling, with impacts on communities left uncounted.

None of the four scenarios that are presented in the IEP, in support of 24 pages of recommendations, can be reconciled with the global mitigation goal.

Only one scenario results in emissions that may just stay within the top of the existing and outdated policy provisions, which stipulate a very broad range also not consistent with avoiding dangerous climate change.

We need to draw the line on greenhouse gas emissions.

* Worthington is an independent expert on energy and climate change as well as a freelance researcher and activist. He submitted this piece on behalf of the African Climate Reality Project.

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Sunday Independent

Related Topics: