I was asked during the UNEP Symposium in Philadelphia yesterday how I thought shale gas and ‘tight gas’ projects — which are at an early stage of operation in various parts of the world such as the United States, China and Argentina — may affect the development of existing renewable energy sources, such as geothermal, biomass, wind, solar, tidal.
There are different dynamics in advanced economies versus emerging economies as each responds to the shale gas opportunity.
In the advanced economies, the values framework for evaluating shale gas tends to emphasize the environment at the expense of economics. This is the so-called “3 C’s” orientation of carbon and climate change. Under this framework, shale and tight gas are only somewhat less carbon-intensive in comparison with traditional fossil fuel sources and their extraction entails media-ampliflied but not yet proven environmental risks associated with ‘fracking’ et cetera.
In the developing world, the tendency is instead to focus on economic and energy security benefits — the “3 E’s” of economics and energy exploitation. From this viewpoint, the positives of shale gas — a relatively cheap and abundant and lower carbon energy source for a country like China — far outweigh negatives of as yet unproven environmental risk. In any case, under the Chinese framework of development, industrial growth and wealth creation come first, and clean-up from the environmental impacts of fast growth come later.
The hard truth is that these the viewpoints in North America and East Asia should not be so divergent. In a world of finite resources and global pollution, we can ill afford to be seeing different problems and talking past one another. The common denominator and linchpin is long-term energy efficiency . Efficient energy utilization is environmental stewardship at the same time that it is good business and the basis for good economic policy. Efficient and diversified energy utilization promotes jobs, investment and a sustainable environment. Neither the advanced world nor the developing world should be sequencing energy and environmental policy or prioritizing between them. Both the U.S. and China could be pursuing a common approach, based on energy efficiency and designed to yield both economic and environmental benefits simultaneously.
By splitting the difference between the “3 C’s” and the ‘3 E’s” both countries could reframe the challenge as the “3 D’s” of diversified energy sources, dollar-accountability, and developmental sustainability. And by re-framing objectives on a realistic and common basis, strategic efforts such as the U.S.-China Shale Gas Resource Initiative may be able to get better global traction.
In the real world, it’s not shale gas versus renewables. It’s shale gas and renewables balanced together for economic and environmental sustainability.
______Assessing China / The TEA Collaborative______ 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Muir Woods
I’m not sure what you are saying here. I guess, with no chance of a carbon tax, climate change banished from the national discourse, and gas fracking specifically exempted from the Clean Water Act, the US would be a 3-E follower.
Does that make China a 3-C ?
October 29, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Terry Cooke
I’d say that the issue here is the difference between how we wish the world to be and how it actually is. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the difference between how we in the U.S. see the issue and how it is seen in China.
Yes, the three steps you mention have all taken place since the Copenhagen debacle and they all represent U.S. movement away from 3-C in the direction of 3-E.
Meanwhile, China, the world’s other 20-plus percent contributor to carbon emissions, has stayed squarely at the 3-E extreme, particularly with regard to its efforts to bolster its cleantech industry and to create 21st c. energy jobs in China. Internationally, it’s stance at Copenhagen undermined any chance for a global 3-C deal. Domestically it permits little discourse over — or grass-roots involvement in — its national environmental policy direction while protection for, and enforcement of, its natural resources remain notably weak.
So the U.S. has moved a few steps from 3-C in the direction of 3-E. China has basically stayed 3-E (including its “progressive” industrial policy) and contemplates small steps in the direction of 3-C (being more forthcoming at Cancun, experimenting with various forms of carbon tax, and strengthening its laws and enforcement of environmental protection albeit from a low baseline).
So the movement toward the middle which my post advocates is in fact happening. The problem is that its slow and a big gap remains between the two. Meanwhile, the U.S.struggles to sustain public support for its environmental policies. Post Global Financial Crisis, the jobs, the investment and the money have all been going to China. That situation is neither economically or environmentally sustainable. It is definitely not sustainable for the U.S. voting public and it is probably not sustainable at a global level, either macro-economically or environmentally.
Thanks for your sharing your thoughts and for engaging with mine.
October 29, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Muir Woods
As always, China is an enigma. They burn more coal and manufacture more wind turbines than anybody, and both are growing faster than everybody else would probably like. For good, or ill.
What side of the fence do you end up on when you appreciate China’s contribution to the rapidly growing installed base of solar PV, and wish they weren’t ripping the guts out of the German and American industry in the process?
Or come to the really distressing conclusion that our cadre of lobbyists and lawyers in the legislature are making worse decisions than the Chinese technocrats, who are more than bad enough, and that neither is effectively democratic or communist in any sense of the word except as a hollow brand name?
Meanwhile, I soldier on in an increasingly polarized world, convinced that both the “C” issues and the “E” issues are critical to our economic and cultural survival. Thanks for your perspective.
October 30, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Chris Varrone
I am seeing China a bit differently —
1) they are leading the world in wind turbine production AND consumption. 50% of world market now in China
wind is by far the most cost effective, large scale renewable & clean energy source
so they get a lot of points for this in my book
2) their companies are all highly incentivized to reduce carbon emissions — their five-year plans regularly have carbon goals, ranked #1 among their goals
3) they are rapidly upgrading their grid, their infrastructure and energy efficiency of their buildings
4) the West has reduced their carbon emissions in part by exporting industrial production to China — seen in this context, China’s record is actually pretty impressive. Yes, their air is terrible, but that’s what provides the incentive to improve environmental behavior – similar to UK in 1950s and California in the 1980s-90s…
Chris
November 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Milan Stevanovich
Our Country’s own Oak Ridge National Labs report commissioned by our Dept of Energy States
“Given the need to rein in our nation’s energy consumption and carbon
emissions, while at the same time stimulating our economy … the author
recommends that federal policymakers seriously consider aggressively deploying Geothermal Heat Pumps nationwide, with programs commencing as soon as possible.
If the government set a goal for US buildings to use no more nonrenewable
energy in 2030 than in 2008, 35-40% of the goal would be acheived with
agressive deployment of Ground Source Heat Pumps.”
Our technology and methodologies require up to 75 less geo bore hole fields, making Citywide/Urban renewable energy systems possible for the first time..
If All the billions of sq ft of new buildings under construction currently in China if using Geoexchange in lieu of natural gas, could make a world of difference…
November 12, 2011 at 7:14 am
Giulio Negrini
No one mention the benefit of electric vehicles. The new feet of EV can make a big difference in natural gas market. My vision of the natural gas production is that NG will be used for power generation.