Natural gas usage is a big wildcard for climate change, in large part because of the increasing use of unconventional extraction methods like fracking, some of which are suspected to have considerably higher fugitive methane emissions than conventional extraction.  Because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, a relatively small leakage rate (on the order of 3%) tips the balance against natural gas, making it actually more GHG-intensive than conventional coal [1].  3% leakage is within the range of uncertainty for published estimates of fugitive emissions from fracking [2]. Finally, the very high short-term (e.g. 20-year) warming potential of methane creates its own problems, because it may contribute to the escalation of feedback effects and move us more quickly to a tipping point [3].

In addition, to the extent that unconventional extraction lowers the price of natural gas, it could actually lead to an increase in consumption under the so-called "rebound effect," which erodes further the potential GHG benefits of natural gas [4].

In my opinion, calling natural gas a "transition fuel" from coal to renewables is a bit of a green-wash.  It may make US policymakers feel better, but it is unlikely to slow climate change without additional measures.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435

[2] http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123

[3] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

[4] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4046154

Natural gas usage is a big wildcard for climate change, in large part because of the increasing use of unconventional extraction methods like fracking, some of which are suspected to have considerably higher fugitive methane emissions than conventional extraction.  Because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, a relatively small leakage rate (on the order of 3%) tips the balance against natural gas, making it actually more GHG-intensive than conventional coal [1].  3% leakage is within the range of uncertainty for published estimates of fugitive emissions from fracking [2]. Finally, the very high short-term (e.g. 20-year) warming potential of methane creates its own problems, because it may contribute to the escalation of feedback effects and move us more quickly to a tipping point [3].

In addition, to the extent that unconventional extraction lowers the price of natural gas, it could actually lead to an increase in consumption under the so-called "rebound effect," which erodes further the potential GHG benefits of natural gas [4].

In my opinion, calling natural gas a "transition fuel" from coal to renewables is a bit of a green-wash.  It may make US policymakers feel better, but it is unlikely to slow climate change without additional measures.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435

[2] http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123

[3] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

[4] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4046154

General speaking, yes of course, as burning natural gas is better than burning fossil fuel, but the question is how much of burning natural gas would be OK with climate change? And where are we going to dig for it?

In my opinion, natural gas is not a "transition fuel" from coal to renewables. I think is a fossil energy and the key action against climate change are on renewables energies plus energy efficiency plus energy and environmental education (institutions, politicians and society)

There is no dilemma that natural gas is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. But, natural gas releases less CO2, SO2, NOx than other fossil fuels and in particular less than coal (while burning natural gas produces nearly half of the CO2 per unit of energy delivered compared to coal) .In my opinion, that natural gas is much better choice than coal and much better „transitional step“ on the road towards low-carbon society in comparison to renewable sources.

I am quoting professor Lawrence M. Cathles who in his study Assessing the Greenhouse Impact of Natural Gas from  2012 said: “Gas is a natural transition fuel that could represent the biggest stabilization wedge available to us“  

The study can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/NiAsaG.

Darko, NG burning is cleaner than burning of oil products or coal, it's obvious. But why do we have to burn anything to get energy? I support an active using the atomic energy, nuclear fusion, hydroelectric plants, solar and wind energy ... there are so many alternatives to burning fossil in the world. But in those areas where NG is the raw material, e.g. in the production of ammonia and other chemicals, of course it is needed.

Estimations show that if all coal-based power plants start running on natural gas, and assuming that no improvements occur in conversion efficiency, a 40% reduction on CO2 emissions related to electricity production may take place.

Natural gas is now widely available at low cost, thanks to new technologies and procedures such as fracking, which allow further exploitation of the deposits already active. However, the boom of this energy source is not enough to slow global warming. A support is a recent analysis conducted by researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, published in the journal Nature.

According to the lead author of the report, economist Haewon McJeon, natural gas over the long term will not contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Although from 2007 to 2012, the use of natural gas in the United States has contributed to the reduction of CO2 emissions in the future there may be the opposite effect.

Poland is paying 500 USD per 1k m3 of gas from Gazprom, so for Poland gas is not the alternative to burn coal especially brown coal which is much cheapper fuel than gas in electric energy production. The same is for China and India and many other countries which would like to supply cheap energy to its poor citizens in developing countries. As long as green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels the world will burn fossil fuels. It is a matter of economics. Even the price of "green energy" will be comparable with "dirty" energy from fossil fuels we need stable sources of energy to have 24/7 production in almost every factory and firm and at homes. "Green energy" is not only expensive but also stochastic in supply and very expensive in stabilization in the network (requires a lot of intercountry transfers which harm energy systems in the neighbor countries and require a lot of investments in network infrastructure (1x10^12 EUR in Germany alone - North-South connections) and can not replace stable source as long as we do not have cheap enough energy storages to stabilize its chaotic flow in the network. Forcing "green energy" in EU by law and subsidies (green certificates and ETS only moves energy consuming production to regions which do not care about CO2 emission (carbon leakage). So only in US which has cheap shale gas - gas can be a good alternative to coal. In EU supplied by Gazprom it is at the moment impossible. Many new and expensive German gas power stations are even not switched on (even in the pick hours) due to electric energy supply from photovoltaic sources during sunny days (pick hours) is decreasing electricity price below break even price for gas to be switched on and generate any profit. So in EU gas is not an alternative. Forsing expensive "green energy" creates energy poverty. Many retired people have only about 200 EUR per month to cover all their expenses including energy bills (0.15 EUR/kWh). They can not afford gas for heating and have to burn coal to get warmed their homes. On the market electric energy is sold by coal power plants for about 40 EUR/MWh but even now the final price is almost 3-4 times higher due to we have to pay high taxes and cover cost of green certificates. Soon we will have to add CO2 allowance purchase costs to this bill what means that many people will can not afford to pay their electric energy bills and will not use it what is the civilisation degradation in XXI centrury. The usage of electric energy per capita in Poland is one of the lowest in EU and will further decrease due to forced "green energy" share increase. Rich EU countries are playing in "saving the world" but will kill many poor citizens in EU in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland in the meantime. Poland is responsible for about 1% CO2 emissions. Greater deacrease than 20% signed in Kioto will harm our industry and most of citizens. Such great effort is useless due to rest of the world simple do not care. Our annual emission from burned coal equals 3 days of China emissions from the same source. Each yea

Each year China increases coal burning 1.5 times more than the whole Poland production.

The most cheaper and green is atomic energy ... build nuclear plants and you will be efficient and your air will be clear.

It is always questionable if natural gas generally affects climate change. There are many contradicory facts in this field, however these facts haven's so big "advertisement"  so they are not commonly known. I can recommend you for example book by Ian Plimer "Global warming: The missing Science" 

The International Energy Agency concludes in its recent 'Energy Technology Perspectives' that new natural gas investments can play at best a limited, very temporary role “if climate objectives are to be met.” As of 2030 natural gas will no longer be part of the solution but part of the problem. Since average lifetime of a natural gas fired power plant ranges between 40-60 years, building new gas fired capacity at this point in time will contribute to the problem rather than help solving it.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ETP2012SUM.pdf

Natural gas is a waste product of the fractional distillation of crude oil.

This gas can be considered as an effective alternative to mitigate climate change if it is used to reduce the rates of deforestation. In the rural areas of Nigeria for example, firewood and other wood products such as Charcoal is majorly used for cooking.  There is a Strong positive relationship between the use of firewood and charcoal with the rates of deforestation. Forests are generally known to be Carbon sequesters. Deforestation not only causes reduction in the carbon sequestering potency of the country but also increases the concentration of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) through its use as a source of energy. Incidentally, oil companies in Nigeria flare natural gas into the atmosphere causing: temperature abnormalities, damage to crops, loss of biodiversity, loss of soil fertility, various health hazards, loss of means of livelihood of the host community which then results in starvation, massive poverty and increased crime rates.

Natural gas which is an environmental concern in the Niger-delta region of Nigeria should be harnessed using appropriate sustainable technology and channeled to the homes of the citizenry at subsidized rates. In terms of economic benefits, waste will be converted to wealth and this will attract more foreign investment to the country. In terms of climate change mitigation, use of wood energy (firewood, charcoal) will decrease causing a reduction in the rates of deforestation which will translate to more sequestering of Carbon-dioxide (CO2) and hence reduce the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. With this achieved there is no doubt that increased natural gas usage along with implementation of advanced technology for gas production would slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

In a word, no, the increased use of natural gas will not slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.  Technically, natural gas should be less carbon-emitting than coal.  However, as commenter Brandon Kuczenski properly points out, the leakage, or fugitive emissions from natural gas at every point along the well to usage end-point cancels out any carbon emission reductions that might be gained from natural gas over coal.  The problem appears to be that at the point of extraction, it only takes a few percent of wells that are "super leakers" to offset all the rest of the wells within acceptable leak tolerances.  Additionally, losses along the pipeline delivery system are well known (just ask Pacific Gas and Electric of California, a well-know natural gas provider).  One last thought - methane emission inventories as measured by actual air concentrations are much higher than can be accounted looking at all the sources - it is strongly suspected, but not yet proven, that the additional methane in the atmosphere is from the large number of fracking and natural gas extraction locations. 

Natural gas burning is much clearer than fossil fuels like coal. Increasing natural gas usage can more or less reduce air pollution and decrease CO2 output. On the other hand, reducing natural gas production cost is also an important point if more natural gas usage is implemented. In this case, natural gas can be considered as an alternative measure to mitigate CO2 emission. 

Yes, only if the natural gas source is animal and human manure and not from geologic deposits.    The burning of methane from manure sources, drops the greenhouse gas impacts 20-fold, and since there is equal domesticated biomass to human biomass, using both the animal and human manures for natural gas production and use, would make a huge impact. 

I am very surprised to whom suggested to use nuclear energy right now?

I think so, the natural fuel is the best solution to decrease the effect of climate change. Always human thinking selfishly for the the welfare of himself.

Like the natural world, humans should model their societies after other natural ecosystems, in that no waste is produced that cannot be used by other living things, or the waste like the excess CO2 changes climate, or that that the waste is toxic to other life forms for eons?  

That means for our energy needs, every rooftop on that planet, both homes and commercial building should have a solar panel to generate electricity, and all 100% gasoline or diesel autos phased out for hybrids and electric, and all nuclear power plants shut down, and some means to store their waste for eternity devised.  I did a piece of artwork expressing these ideas at http://www.ecoseeds.com/stamps_cartoon2.JPG which is a part of my artwork pages at http://www.ecoseeds.com/art.html.

We are standing on the sinking Titanic which is our planet in trouble and we caused the problems,  and aren't we going to do something more than just rearrange the Titanic's deck chairs?

Natural gas like a bridge ("transition fuel") to low-carbon in near future or ...

If Europe wants to embrace natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future, it should draw from America’s success  Jeff D. Makholm (http://bit.ly/1MRXza7)

All oil and gas reserves on Earth have been formed during the last 600 million years and for the most part between 100 and 150 million years ago during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

Oil, gas and coal are all hydrocarbon remainders of plants and animals that have been "cooked" below ground and under pressure for thousands of years. All three are thus examples of nonrenewable fossil fuels. I don't know why (fossil) gas oftentimes is referred to as "natural gas". 

I also think that this explanation partly answers the question. While (perhaps) better in comparison to some other fossil energy sources (leakage not withstanding), it's hard to argue that gas is part of the solution rather than part of the problem of runaway CO2 emissions, climate change etc. 

If more advanced technologies for gas production are deployed and the price for gas drops, we will quickly find new uses for gas (rather than gas "replacing" other more polluting forms of fossil energy), e.g. the "rebound effect".

Yes, I think that the widespread use and long-term sulfur free gas is a relatively clean energy can be an alternative to other fossil fuels to fight against climate change

Like some of you, I think that the release of some carbon dioxide from natural gas is slightly better than the release of big volumes of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide.  But isn't it better to use truly renewable energy sources: water, wind, tide, and wave.  See Ljubomir's question, please.  Thanks.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_thoughts_on_renewable_ocean_energy_such_as_wave_wind_and_tidal_energy

I think it can't. If you check share of individual greenhouse gases you will see that more than 95 % represent water vapors. Remaining part consists of CO2, CH4 and others. So natural gas can play only minimum role, if any. 

Comparatively, Natural gas is preferable than say oil etc. 

Natural gas is a fossil fuel like petroleum & coal. It has higher fuel value than the other two but it also requires processing (such as desulfurization) before use. Upon combustion it releases CO2 with each molecule of methane consuming 2 molecules of oxygen to produce one molecule of carbon dioxide. In the presence of limited amount of O2, it will produce CO (a harmful gas) & if  there are traces of H2S or a mercaptan compound (R-S-H where R is an organic alkyl group) , then sulfur oxides will result when N.G is burnt. Therefore, N.G is not as sound & reasonable effective alternative as it may seem & by no means we can consider it as environmentally- friendly.

Does and how natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions ?

http://www.appea.com.au/industry-in-depth/policy/greenhouse/how-natural-gas-can-minimise-greenhouse-emissions/

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/09/140924-natural-gas-impact-on-emissions/

The problem with subbing natural gas for coal or other fossil fuels, is the escape of the natural gas through wells and transmission, the escape of that methane is 20x worse as a creator of global warming than CO2.  However, worldwide, by concentrating both human, cattle, chicken, and pig manures to produce methane, would eliminate those manures as a source of atmospheric methane.  Even if we digested the manures and burned the methane on site for say electricity generation, at lease it would keep that methane from getting into the atmosphere.  

Sorry, that last line should read "as least..."  Sometimes we are so focused on CO2 as the main greenhouse gas causing global warming, that we tend to forget that other gases like methane can be 20X worse when it gets into the air?

I am suggesting an alternative to the whole CO2/methane issue, and focus instead on revegetating the hot arid regions of the world with their local native plants, to control the heat being absorbed by those parts of the planet.   The plants have an insulating effect, so that the sun's heat never gets absorbed by the barren soil.  Anyone in an hot arid area can go out and measure the insulating effects of a native plant like I did here in California, attached image.  

This is an image of a single native grass in the Mojave desert when the air temp. was 90 deg. F. and the colors are in degrees F. and the grid is in inches. 

Also across the planet, each government pay for placing solar panels on every roof that can have them.  In that fashion, not only do the solar panels produce non-fossil fuel power, but they shade the building, requiring less power for cooling in the summer, like in India, the Middle East, Los Angeles, Phoenix, etc. 

A third potential plan is when revegetating the barren hot parts of the planet, you concentrate on the areas producing dust storms, because the atmospheric dust is a heat collector, whereas clear air traps the least amount of heat, airborne particles of dust has a multiplier effect by accumulating heat in the atmosphere.

You can read more about these ideas at http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html

Gas is probably the lesser evil of the fossil fuels, but we need some enforcement of the decisions taken at climate conferences. Look at the deplorable situation that Canada has gotten into by its Government going berserk sponsoring pollution at any cost. Who is going to send the Canadian PM to prison for betraying the next generations?

There is a more or less consensus under this question to drastically limit emissions, yet how long can people sit as observers while the climate worsens?

The invisible fuel: Is a natural gas car a good way to go green?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/natural-gas-cars-putting-alternative-fuel-under-pressure/

As energy source natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. It certainly allows to pollute less but to say that it is a very clean fuel would be wrong. The gas composition depends on soilless which it is extracted. Some contain large amounts of sulfur products that would cause acid rain  

Natural Gas Is The Cleanest Fossil Fuel

Natural Gas produces 50% less CO2 than other fossil fuels

http://www.igu.org/natural-gas-cleanest-fossil-fuel

 Dear all,

@ Darko

@ Fadel

Yes, with the comparison of all natural energy sources, we can found that natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel.

Regards

But even better is when methane is burned that is produced by vegetable matter and feces decomposition, rather than a fossil source.  In California our cattle biomass equals the human biomass kilo for kilo, and all those megatons of feces are producing methane that gets into the atmosphere rather than being burned as fuel. 

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Climate change does not respect border; it does not respect who you are - rich and poor, small and big. Therefore, this is what we call 'global challenges,' which require global solidarity."

                            ------  Ban Ki-moon

The clear and present danger of climate change means we cannot burn our way to prosperity. We already rely too heavily on fossil fuels. We need to find a new, sustainable path to the future we want. We need a clean industrial revolution.

Ban Ki-moon

"People are going to buy cheap fertilizer so they can grow enough crops to feed themselves, which will be increasingly difficult with climate change."

Bill Gates

The scientific community should work as hard as possible to address major issues that affect our everyday lives such as climate change, infectious diseases and counterterrorism; in particular, 'clean energy' research deserves far higher priority. And science and technology are the prime routes to tackling these issues.

Martin Rees

"Climate change and dependence on foreign oil are problems that won't go away on their own. Tabling plans to deal with them doesn't make it easier for companies to plan and invest; it makes it harder."

Christina Romer

"The sun, with all those plants revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do."

Galileo

@ Darko

Very beautiful sentence of Galileo

 "Take care of the land and the land will take care of you."

H. Bennett

Darko Pavlović --

PLINACRO L.T.D., Gas Transmission System Operator, what is the opinion of your company--If we start producing methane with plant, animal and human waste, wouldn't that be the best solution, so we humans can eventually stop using fossil fuels completely in the future?  By doing this conversion, countries that do not have fossil fuel deposits could become more independent, and would not always be at the mercy of the fossil-fuel producing countries?  

And by producing their own methane using recycled materials, would decrease their net atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time as a country, be investing in their own infrastructure, instead of sending billions of dollars to the fossil fuel producing countries?

Coal fuel reached its "maturity" in the early 20th century. In the mid-seventies of the 20th century it was replaced by oil and today we are undoubtedly in the period in which natural gas dominates as fuel. In the "near" future hydrogen will be used as an ecological renewable energy source. Hydrogen is an energy source of outstanding quality, and could change the global energy distribution. Hydrogen is clean, affordable, universally widespread and also available for countries, which today do not have constant access to energy...

  "Without urgent measures to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the possibility of limiting the temperature rise below a dangerous level will have disappeared within a decade."

Steve Sawyer

 "Teaching children about the natural world should be seen as one of the most important events in their lives."

Thomas Berry

 Beautiful quote dear Darko

 "we are rapidly running out of time to cap carbon emissions.”

Quote from Time magazine

Obama says world must speed up climate change fight

 http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/obama-says-world-must-reach-climate-deal-in-paris-while-we-still-can

US President Barack Obama stressed that world leaders must at the summit of the UN in December to agree on reduction of carbon emissions due to the climate is changing faster than you are taking efforts to reduce global warming.The US president was in a meeting on climate change, said the US recognizes that largely involved in raising the average temperature of the earth and to accept their responsibility to help solve the problem.

by Dr. Luis Ritto

http://ispdnetwork.org/diplomacy-and-its-practice-vii-international-relations-geopolitics-and-diplomacy/

“…According to UN-Water, an inter-agency of the United Nations, 97 percent of the earth’s water is salt water and only 3 percent is fresh water. All major human activities (agriculture, industry, household, environmental…) require fresh water. To be able to feed and support the world’s growing population, the global economy needs also to grow. But the supply of fresh water is decreasing which can impact negatively in the future world economic output, including in particular in the production of food. In fact, water for irrigation and food production constitutes one of the greatest pressures on fresh water resources. Agriculture accounts for around 70 percent of fresh water use in the world and in some cases (like for example in fast growing economies) it can attain 90 percent of sweet water withdrawals. These issues, which are interconnected, cannot be neglected in all future strategies: increased agricultural output will substantially increase both water and energy consumption, leading to increased competition for fresh water between water-using countries. Therefore, a grim perspective!”

EU to Australia: Global warming isn’t ‘crap’

Global warming skepticism makes the country a difficult ally for Europeans.

“We could stop producing coal tomorrow, and every Australian could ride a bicycle, and we would still have almost no impact on global emissions"

http://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-eu-paris-australia-cop21-emissions-global-warming-crap/

IEA calls for clean-energy innovation

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-IEA-calls-for-clean-energy-innovation-0505155.html

"It is now crucial for governments and other stakeholders to take effective decisions for energy sustainability. This will not be possible by relying on yesterday's technology and policies. It is lean-energy innovation that will get us on the right path."

Maria van der Hoeven,IEA executive director

This is very interesting Paper, dear @ Darko.

Climate change is a risk-multiplier. It has the potential to take all the other critical issues we face as a global community and transform their severity into a cataclysm. Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address. Furthermore, because climate change is intimately connected with our systemic, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, any decline in the ecological resilience of one resource base or ecosystem increases the fragility of the whole - HRH The Prince of Wales addressing UN climate conference COP15, Copenhagen (December 2009)

@ Darko

This answer is just with regard to the problem posed

Natural gas and climate change: problems in alternative power paradise?

http://fleetowner.com/running-green/natural-gas-and-climate-change-problems-alternative-power-paradise

Cañete: Gas is a bridge between coal and renewables. But in 2050 it’ll still be there.

“Gas is the cleanest fossil fuel,” he said. “Gas is not the end of the road. It is a bridge between coal and renewables. But in 2050 gas will still be there.”

http://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/canete-gas-is-a-bridge-between-coal-and-renewables-but-in-2050-itll-still-be-there/

Dear  Darko,

Very informative and interesting Paper!

“Lowering risk, protecting against price rises, saving millions and boosting brand is what shaping a low carbon economy is all about. “

Mark Kenber, CEO of The Climate Group.

The "functional" politicians, the "functional" media, and the concerned companies have repeated the misleading phrase that "natural gas is more clean fuel than petroleum derivatives". Had they been honest, they would have said that (natural gas is "less dirty" fuel than petroleum derivatives). This is what agrees with petroleum chemistry. Natural gas is still considered as pollutant which contributed to climate change & will keep on doing so. The influential powers do not want to put research for energy alternatives high on the priority list so I am afraid that we will still move to more worse climate change in the years ahead.

Energy Revolution 2015

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2015/

"Greenpeace has been publishing its Energy [R]evolution scenarios since 2005, more recently in collaboration with the scientific community, in particular the German Aerospace Centre (DLr). While our predictions on the potential and market growth of renewable energy may once have seemed fanciful or unrealistic, they have proved to be accurate. the US-based Meister Consultants Group concluded earlier this year that "the world's biggest energy agencies, financial institutions and fossil fuel companies for the most part seriously under-estimated just how fast the clean power sector could and would grow". It wasn't the IEA, Goldman Sachs or the US Department of Energy who got it right. It was Greenpeace's market scenario which was the most accurate."

Very good information dear Darko

Gas: The Energy Transition’s Natural Ally

http://www.total.com/en/media/news/news/gas-energy-transitions-natural-ally

"... Natural gas presents advantages in terms of costs, flexibility and environmental impact. CO2 emissions from the combustion of natural gas to generate electricity are only half of that from burning coal, a good thing for a planet confronted with global warning. Conversion to gas is easy, particularly for power generation, as it only takes two years to build a power plant..."

'Bright Future' For NatGas, But New Pipelines, Engineers Needed

http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/103929-bright-future-for-natgas-but-new-pipelines-engineers-needed

"... Shale gas and climate change has been positive, not all people understand that," Pickering said, adding that without it, prices for electricity and natural gas would be higher, and would likely lead to lower total energy created. He said a world without shale gas would also decrease demand for natural gas because renewables and perhaps some other forms of energy, like nuclear power, are diverted to help generate electricity..."

By the time we see that climate change is really bad, your ability to fix it is extremely limited... The carbon gets up there, but the heating effect is delayed. And then the effect of that heat on the species and ecosystem is delayed. That means that even when you turn virtuous, things are actually going to get worse for quite a while.

Bill Gates

@ Arar.I totally agree with the vision of Bill Gates

Paris climate summit: Major oil producers back 'effective' deal

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34551519

"The leaders of 10 of the world's biggest oil companies have offered their qualified support for a new global treaty on climate change.

They promise to promote natural gas as a better option than coal and invest in carbon capture and storage as well as renewable energy.

The producers of 20% of the world's oil and gas say they share the ambition to limit warming to 2C (35.6F). They promise to work to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the global energy mix.  "Our shared ambition is for a 2C future," the 10 chief executive officers said in a statement which acknowledges that the existing trend of the world's net greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with this aim..."

Yes Darko Gas may be an option. We need leaders to take courageous decisions

California Enacts Law Requiring 50% Renewables By 2030

California last week passed a law that might help her to become an American champion in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

"... Last week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015.  The law establishes ambitious energy efficiency and renewable energy goals for California, including increasing from 33% to 50% the procurement of California’s electricity from renewable sources and doubling the energy efficiency savings through energy efficiency and conservation..."

http://www.insideenergyandenvironment.com/

Nuclear power is needed to help reduce global fossil-fuel emissions that are set to reach limits advocated by scientists by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency.

@ Arar. This is accurate information. I personally am against nuclear

"China has made an "excellent example" in reducing carbon emissions, keeping at the same time an economic growth, said chief economist of International Energy Agency (IEA) Fatih Birol recently in an exclusive interview with Xinhua. In 2014, the volume of Chinese carbon emissions declined for the first time since 1999, while its economy increased around 7 percent, Birol said. According to the figures of a special report published by IEA in June 2015, Chinese carbon emissions registered in 2014 a drop of around 130 million metric tons, 1.5 percent annually. With the success of 2014, China is "one of the major drivers of the good news" in terms of global climate change, the chief economist said, hoping China continue to put the right energy policies in place and continue to find solution for the environmental problems."

Source: Xinhua

Quite Darko. China remains one of the largest country that uses coal therefore it remains a carbon emission source

Towards COP21 summit in Paris, the European Parliament decided that from 2016, relentlessly neutralize carbon dioxide emissions and thus become the first EU institution to be 100% carbon neutral.

Indeed Darko , the information that you suggest is true, we'll see if this actually materializes although I do not doubt the decisions of the European Parliament. Europe remains the best student on the subject

Without any doubt, today it is clear that renewable energy sources are necessary to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and the production of low-carbon electricity.  Gas fired power plants, enabling the production of spare energy when it is not possible production from renewable energy sources.

Yes Darko power plants using gas is among ways that reduce greenhouse gases. In Algeria in many regions use gas for power plants. In the South in strong sunlight the plants operate with mixed gas and solar energy

I think it should be hard work to mitigate climate change. This change clear by hit severely the glacier region. So it is important to accelerate to reduce the rise of greenhouse gases.

"The Heat is On’ Initiative: catalysing stronger leadership from fossil-fuel companies on climate change"

http://www.c-resource.com/the-heat-is-on/

"Fossil fuel companies will need to play a central role in helping the world to limit a rise in the global mean temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, an internationally-accepted policy goal. ‘The Heat is On’ initiative aims to support fossil fuel companies to integrate this challenge into their business strategies.The initiative is guided by a Senior Advisory Panel of former and current leaders from industry, government, international organisations and civil society (see below). It is led and coordinated by Critical Resource, an advisory firm supporting responsible practices in the extractive industries.The initiative seeks to add significant value to existing industry climate programmes. It is a quest for ‘big ideas’ on how the industry can transform itself to operate profitably in a carbon-constrained world. It will advocate for meaningful company leadership, working through collaboration. It will focus on the needs of developing countries and the international credibility of companies with their stakeholders. It will be grounded in an understanding of business realities while also recognising the urgent need for action..."

Minimizing natural gas and increasing renewable resources can be considered as an effective alternative to mitigate climate change.

Bill Gates preps biggest clean energy fund 'in history'

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060028602

"...Technology giant Bill Gates will unveil the world's largest clean energy research and development partnership on Monday, joining in Paris with other billionaires and world leaders, several sources told E&E.The multibillion-dollar announcement will come at the opening day of landmark U.N. climate change negotiations in the French capital, and is expected to inject significant momentum to the talks.According to government and business officials knowledgeable about the announcement, a group of developing and developed countries -- including the United States and India -- will agree to double their research and development budgets for clean energy and form a coalition to conduct joint work.Gates and other billionaires, meanwhile, will pledge a pool of money to assist the cooperative projects. The exact spending amount was unclear yesterday, but one source put it in the billions of dollars."This is the single biggest cooperative research and development partnership in history," the source said..."

A global natural gas boom alone won't slow climate change

A new analysis of global energy use, economics and the climate shows that without new climate policies, expanding the current bounty of inexpensive natural gas alone would not slow the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide over the long term, according to a study appearing today in Nature Advance Online Publication.

The key, the researchers said, is that the five different models provide an integrated, comprehensive view of the economy and the Earth system. Swapping out coal for natural gas in a simple model would cut greenhouse gas emissions, a result many people expected to see. But incorporating the behavior of the entire economy and how people create and use energy from all sources affect emissions in several ways:

Natural gas replacing coal would reduce carbon emissions. But due to its lower cost, natural gas would also replace some low-carbon energy, such as renewable or nuclear energy. Overall changes result in a smaller reduction than expected due to natural gas replacing these other, low-carbon sources.

In a sense, natural gas would become a larger slice of the energy pie.

• Abundant, less expensive natural gas would lower energy prices across the board, leading people to use more energy overall. In addition, inexpensive energy stimulates the economy, which also increases overall energy use. Consequently, the entire energy pie gets bigger.
• The main component of natural gas, methane, is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. During production and distribution, some methane inevitably escapes into the atmosphere. The researchers considered both high and low estimates for this so-called fugitive methane. Even at the lower end, fugitive methane adds to climate change

Read the rest of this interesting article at:

http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=3166

Here's why fossil-fuel Norway has to change: PM

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/01/norways-oil-economy-must-change-pm.html

"As global leaders try to tackle the thorny issues of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, the prime minister of resource-rich Norway told CNBC how the country can diversify away from oil, gas and coal."We are doing very, very intensive work on the diversification of our economy because the lower investments and lower oil price leads to that. But… we also knew that, at one time, we would have less oil and gas to develop and it would be more costly," Prime Minister Erna Solberg told CNBC Monday on the sidelines of the United Nations climate change conference, also known as COP21. "This increases the importance of transforming our economy," she added..."

Editorial: Climate talks should focus on natural gas

Between 2005 and 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that greenhouse gas emissions fell by 9 percent, even while the nation’s population and economic output increased. The largest decline was in carbon dioxide, the focus of Obama’s new rules on power plants.

In April, carbon dioxide emissions reached a 27-year low in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The primary factor in the rollback of emissions is the natural gas boom made possible by hydraulic fracking.

Surging natural gas production has dramatically lowered the price of the commodity and made it economically feasible for utility companies to convert dirtier coal-fired power plants to cleaner-burning gas-powered facilities.

That trend is expected to continue.

The most positive aspect of the switch to natural gas is that it is market driven. Unlike windmills and solar panels, gas-powered plants can deliver base-load supplies of electricity at a cost customers can afford. And the technology is available today.

Expanding natural gas exploration and use, particularly in coal dependent emerging economies such as China and India, should be a primary theme of the Paris confab.

Rather than concentrating on schemes to limit fracking and restrict fossil fuel energy production and thus economic activity,  world leaders should embrace the breathing room natural gas could provide. Moving heavily to natural gas would bring down greenhouse gas emissions substantially while alternative energy technologies are improved to make them practical for large scale power production.

Climate policy in its requirements towards the low carbon energy  shall not  in any way jeopardize the further development of energy market. Consequently, a key factor for successful realization of climate goals will be technological development, accompanied by incentive regulation, the most profound being expected in energy storage sector and in more efficient cogeneration.

You're quite right, dear @ Darko !

Everything you need to know about the Paris climate summit and UN talks

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks

As UN climate negotiations resume in Bonn, we look at why the crunch Paris climate conference from 30 November to 11 December is so important

Paris climate summit

Hollande: the future of the planet is at stake

Obama: we must act now - it's almost too late

Cameron: the earth is in peril

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12024206/Paris-climate-change-conference-LIVE-world-leaders-meet-for-UN-talks.html

PV cheapest energy source in Chile; China hits new cell performance record

"Solar PV is the cheapest source of electricity generation in Chile, according to a Deutsche Bank report released on November 3.In the latest power auction in the country in late October, renewable energy projects were awarded 100% of the tendered contracts for the supply of 1,200 GWh energy to unregulated customers, with solar power projects winning most of the contracts.Three solar parks offered to sell power for $65-68/MWh, while two wind farms bid a price of $79/MWh and a solar thermal plant with storage offered power at a $97/MWh tariff.By comparison, coal power was offered for $85/MWh in the same tender round.Deutsche Bank forecasts solar installations in Chile could exceed 1 GW in 2015 but expects new solar installations to decrease to 500 MW in 2016 and 400 MW in 2017.According to the bank, most of the growth in Chile will come from large utility-scale solar projects as system costs continue to decline and power purchase agreement (PPA) prices settle in the low $70/MWh range.Module prices in Chile are currently about 52 cents/W on average and below 50 cents/W on bigger projects. Overall project costs are currently below $1/W, the report said..."

http://analysis.pv-insider.com/pv-cheapest-energy-source-chile-china-hits-new-cell-performance-record

Natural gas is a bridge between fossil fuels and renewable energy sources.

Natural gas for its efficiency and flexibility is the perfect complement renewable energy sources. Also, there is no doubt that gas plays a key role in the development of energy that produces less carbon emissions - reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Crude Oil's Impact on Renewable Energy: Energy Alternative or Energy Staple?

With the removal of fossil fuel subsidies and the continual drop in capital costs in renewables technology, the margins for the leading players in the renewables industry will increase.

http://www.altenergymag.com/article/2015/06/crude-oil%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDs-impact-on-renewable-energy-energy-alternative-or-energy-staple/20384