December 2010 Archives

Can natural gas be a panacea for America's energy problems?

Several recent developments highlight the appeal of natural gas, especially in a policy landscape that does not price greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide as coal and about 30 percent less than oil.

In its annual outlook released last week, the Energy Information Administration projected that domestic shale natural gas will fill an increasingly important role in U.S. energy consumption. Oil giant Shell said last week it will produce more gas than oil by 2012, illustrating the shift among the oil industry into the gas sector.

Utilities are starting to replace their old coal-fired power plants with new gas plants. Natural gas complements renewable energy production when, for example, the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. The recently discovered resources of shale gas in the Northeast and Louisiana indicate that historically volatile gas prices could be more stable in the future.

Politically, President Obama has cited natural gas as one of the top areas where Republicans and Democrats can find bipartisanship. But so far that hasn't proven true: Lawmakers are divided over hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method to extract shale gas also dubbed "fracking."

Should Congress and the administration seek to incentivize natural gas in areas like electricity production and heavy-duty vehicles? Can lawmakers and various interest groups find common ground on fracking? Should natural gas no longer be considered a "bridge" fuel to renewable energy, given that Congress is not poised to pass comprehensive climate legislation any time soon?

16 responses: Paul Sullivan, Don Santa, Denise Bode, David Holt, David Parker, Bill Dickenson, Rodger Schlickeisen, Brent Erickson, Steve Bolze, Skip Horvath, Bill Meadows, Tom Amontree, Bernard L. Weinstein, Gregory C. Staple, Paul N. Cicio, William O'Keefe

Did President Obama have justification for deciding this month to backtrack on the expanded offshore oil and gas drilling policy he had originally announced in March, before the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Key lawmakers from the president's own party, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, are disappointed about the administration's announcement. Bingaman predicted last week it would be "extensively discussed" in the 112th Congress. House Republicans are also pushing for Congress to open for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, along with other areas that are limited right now, including portions of the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

What are the repercussions of the administration's reversal? Should Congress lift the moratorium that's currently in place in the eastern gulf? Will the administration budge on issues like ANWR due to pressure from House Republicans and other conservative voices, like Sarah Palin and former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham? Will the gulf oil spill have any lasting effect, or will a GOP-controlled House and a more conservative Senate see past that?

10 responses: Marilyn Heiman, Thomas J. Pyle, Paul Sullivan, Bill Meadows, Carl Pope, Jacqueline Savitz, Rodger Schlickeisen, Jack Gerard, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe

CANCUN, Mexico -- By now it appears clear that there will be no new binding global climate change treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when its current commitment period expires in 2012. So what should come next?

Developing countries, led by China, want to renew Kyoto. But that would exempt from action both the United States, which is not a party to Kyoto, and China, which under the terms of the treaty is not bound to cut its carbon emissions. Negotiators in Cancun have talked about putting together a package of agreements on discrete elements, such as prevented deforestation and technology transfer, to come into force after Kyoto expires. Some nations, such as the island state of Papua New Guinea, say that the U.N. process has failed, and it's time for nations and major economies to take action in bilateral and multilateral agreements.

What other options are on the table? Will any effort other than a binding international treaty be enough to meaningfully reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? In the absence of domestic climate legislation, what can the United States do to salvage a global climate agreement?

7 responses: Dirk Forrister, Bill Meadows, Paul Sullivan, Carl Pope, Brent Erickson, Denise Bode, William O'Keefe