Gwyn Morgan’s commentary titled “Natural gas is the only real alternative to coal” is incorrect and misleading. (Daily Gleaner, Oct. 8) Clearly it’s meant to bolster arguments for shale gas proponents.
Ninety seven percent of scientists and many people around the world and here in Canada understand that without question the real alternative to coal is not natural gas, but renewable energy and efficiency.
Mr. Morgan’s argument that natural gas development is supported by science, when in fact it increases global warming and is harmful, is much like the Pope in the 16th century insisting that the sun circled the earth. The irony is that the present Pope is siding emphatically with authentic science by calling on government and industry to tackle climate change immediately for the welfare of the poor, those who are marginalized, and the environment on which everyone depends.
Natural gas has numerous downsides. Still uncertain, but large, quantities of methane are escaping into the atmosphere from shale gas operations, storage and transport infrastructure. Methane (CH4) is contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions at 16% in a 2010 study by the IPCC. These numbers are likely significantly higher today. Much of the escaping methane is not being monitored by industry as the regulators’ funding for this is being curtailed.
A peer-reviewed health study on shale gas conducted by the Physicians, Engineers and Scientists for Healthy Energy concluded that 84% of all health studies found actual or potential health problems. Likewise, 69% of all water studies in shale gas plays found actual or potential cases of water contamination, and 89% of air studies indicated elevated air pollution emissions. These studies are in the public record, and should not be ignored, down played or dismissed.
The door is closing on the fossil fuel industry, and the one that’s opening is on renewable, clean energy. This energy produces very little global warming, and far less pollution and health costs. Solar, wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal all provide clean energy that can create far more jobs in New Brunswick than natural gas. When tied to making all buildings more energy efficient even more jobs are created, providing savings to the owners.
Countries around the world and jurisdictions close to home have created quality jobs while improving air quality and, most importantly, slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
Vermont’s efforts in green energy earned it in 2013 No. 1 ranking in the number of jobs per capita in the U.S., and the city of Burlington, Vermont, (population of 42,000) is now a 100% renewable energy city.
Massachusetts’ clean energy employment grew by 10.5% between 2013 and 2014, and expects to grow another 14% in 2015. The state has double the jobs in clean energy than Pennsylvania has in natural gas, creating a healthy economy with a healthier environment.
New Brunswick and Canada can do the same and get the same benefits. The government of Canada presently gives the oil and gas industry $1.3 billion in subsidies yearly, creating fewer than 3,000 jobs. A $1.3 billion investment in wind, solar, hydro and biomass it would create over 20,000 jobs. In energy efficiency it would create over 18,000 jobs. Investments in wind and solar power to meet Canada’s obligation to limit warming to 2 degrees can create up to 19,000 jobs. (BlueGreen Canada)
Climate change must be dealt with now. Any further delays in doing this is not being responsible, no matter how much the oil and gas industry proponents try to convince us that they can do this.
The cost of climate change will be huge. It may still be possible to mitigate it if the subsidies to the hydrocarbon industry are ended now, the divestments in the industry continue, and those funds reinvested in clean energy, efficiency and research and development. Renewable energy is the only real alternative to coal, oil and gas.
Sam Arnold is a member of the Clean Energy Committee of the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance and is a member of the Woodstock Sustainable Energy Group.