IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) provides a clear and up to date view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change. It consists of three Working Group (WG) reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR) which integrates and synthesizes material in the WG reports for policymakers. The SYR will be finalized on 31 October 2014. Further information about the outline and content and how the AR5 has been prepared can be found in the AR5 reference document andSYR Scoping document, AR5 page and on the websites of the working groups.

AR5 Media Portal
Outreach Calendar

Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change

The Working Group III contribution assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues.

Summary for Policymakers (en)
Working Group III Report website
Quick link to report PDFs

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

The Working Group II contribution considers the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, the observed impacts and future risks of climate change, and the potential for and limits to adaptation. The chapters of the report assess risks and opportunities for societies, economies, and ecosystems around the world.

Summary for Policymakers (en)
Working Group II Report website
Quick link to report PDFs

Pipe Dreams | Food & Water Watch

Pipe Dreams | Food & Water Watch.

Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence is available here:

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/pipe-dreams/

August 4, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-4905
Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch, (718) 943-9085

Shaky U.S. Economy Won’t Benefit from Natural Gas Expansion
Food & Water Watch Analysis Reveals Industry Plans to Send Fracked
Gas and Profits Overseas

Washington, D.C.—As the federal government prepares to gut key programs to protect water and other natural resources through this week’s debt agreement, the Department of Energy (DOE) has announced plans to invest $12.4 million on programs to support shale gas development. Yet new analysis released today by the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch casts additional doubt on the benefits of natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing. Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence shows that gas leases are not only generating less energy than once forecast, but also a significant portion of U.S. fracked gas will be exported overseas and the industry’s revenues will benefit foreign economies.

According to recent trade publication accounts, DOE will invest $1.6 million, outspending General Electric 4 to 1, on a project designed to remove radioactive material from wastewater from fracking operations in New York State. It will spend additional funds on projects to improve natural gas well performance in Colorado, Texas, California and New Mexico.

In July, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a moratorium on fracking, and the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation has recommended opening up 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York to gas fracking. A coalition of 49 groups has come out in support of a ban on fracking in New York.

“This new analysis provides further evidence that fracking will endanger New York’s water for the benefit of foreign interests and customers,” said Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch’s senior organizer in New York. “Governor Cuomo needs to read this report, which effectively undermines the natural gas industry’s claims that fracking will promote energy independence.”

While U.S. natural gas consumption is actually expected to decline through 2015, it is expected to increase overseas—as much as 44 percent by 2035, with China and India leading that demand. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities once conceptualized for importing gas are now being converted to export terminals to feed the Chinese and Indian markets; Chesapeake Energy is exploring selling some of its natural gas to the India-based Cheniere Energy. Included in this plan is a liquefaction plant in the Gulf of Mexico. Natural gas from the U.S. is attractive to foreign markets because it is less expensive than that from Asia.

As U.S. companies sell or lease their own holdings, many international players are increasing their share of the U.S. natural gas market:

•       Reliance Industries (India): In 2010 announced the purchase of a 40 percent stake in Atlas Energy’s Marcellus Shale operation for $1.7 billion; also acquired a 45 percent stake in Eagle Ford shale from Pioneer Natural Resources for $1.36 billion, including $210 million to Pioneer’s other partner Newpek LLC, a subsidiary of Mexican company ALFA SAB de CV.

 

•       China National Offshore Oil Corp (China, government-owned): Agreed to pay $2.2 billion for access to a shale play in south Texas in October 2010; agreed to pay $570 million in cash for a third of Chesapeake’s Niobrara shale basin in Colorado and Wyoming in January 2011.
•       BP (United Kingdom): In 2008, invested more than $3.6 billion in U.S. shale, including $1.9 billion for 25 percent of Chesapeake’s Fayetteville shale operations and $1.75 billion for all of Chesapeake’s Woodford Shale operations in Oklahoma.

 

•       Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands): Paid $4.7 billion for East Resources and its Marcellus Shale assets in 2010.

 

After rising and falling in 2008, natural gas prices plateaued in 2010 and have remained steady since. Moreover, many gas wells are producing less gas than once expected, and some U.S.-based companies such as Chesapeake Energy have resorted to selling the land their wells are situated on as a means of generating revenues.

Further adding to doubts of the natural gas industry’s ability to generate ample energy, news surfaced earlier this week that the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating the accuracy of the industry’s claims regarding the performance of shale gas wells.

Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence is available here: August 4, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-4905
Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch, (718) 943-9085

Shaky U.S. Economy Won’t Benefit from Natural Gas Expansion
Food & Water Watch Analysis Reveals Industry Plans to Send Fracked
Gas and Profits Overseas

Washington, D.C.—As the federal government prepares to gut key programs to protect water and other natural resources through this week’s debt agreement, the Department of Energy (DOE) has announced plans to invest $12.4 million on programs to support shale gas development. Yet new analysis released today by the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch casts additional doubt on the benefits of natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing. Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence shows that gas leases are not only generating less energy than once forecast, but also a significant portion of U.S. fracked gas will be exported overseas and the industry’s revenues will benefit foreign economies.

According to recent trade publication accounts, DOE will invest $1.6 million, outspending General Electric 4 to 1, on a project designed to remove radioactive material from wastewater from fracking operations in New York State. It will spend additional funds on projects to improve natural gas well performance in Colorado, Texas, California and New Mexico.

In July, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a moratorium on fracking, and the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation has recommended opening up 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York to gas fracking. A coalition of 49 groups has come out in support of a ban on fracking in New York.

“This new analysis provides further evidence that fracking will endanger New York’s water for the benefit of foreign interests and customers,” said Eric Weltman, Food & Water Watch’s senior organizer in New York. “Governor Cuomo needs to read this report, which effectively undermines the natural gas industry’s claims that fracking will promote energy independence.”

While U.S. natural gas consumption is actually expected to decline through 2015, it is expected to increase overseas—as much as 44 percent by 2035, with China and India leading that demand. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities once conceptualized for importing gas are now being converted to export terminals to feed the Chinese and Indian markets; Chesapeake Energy is exploring selling some of its natural gas to the India-based Cheniere Energy. Included in this plan is a liquefaction plant in the Gulf of Mexico. Natural gas from the U.S. is attractive to foreign markets because it is less expensive than that from Asia.

As U.S. companies sell or lease their own holdings, many international players are increasing their share of the U.S. natural gas market:

•       Reliance Industries (India): In 2010 announced the purchase of a 40 percent stake in Atlas Energy’s Marcellus Shale operation for $1.7 billion; also acquired a 45 percent stake in Eagle Ford shale from Pioneer Natural Resources for $1.36 billion, including $210 million to Pioneer’s other partner Newpek LLC, a subsidiary of Mexican company ALFA SAB de CV.

 

•       China National Offshore Oil Corp (China, government-owned): Agreed to pay $2.2 billion for access to a shale play in south Texas in October 2010; agreed to pay $570 million in cash for a third of Chesapeake’s Niobrara shale basin in Colorado and Wyoming in January 2011.
•       BP (United Kingdom): In 2008, invested more than $3.6 billion in U.S. shale, including $1.9 billion for 25 percent of Chesapeake’s Fayetteville shale operations and $1.75 billion for all of Chesapeake’s Woodford Shale operations in Oklahoma.

 

•       Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands): Paid $4.7 billion for East Resources and its Marcellus Shale assets in 2010.

 

After rising and falling in 2008, natural gas prices plateaued in 2010 and have remained steady since. Moreover, many gas wells are producing less gas than once expected, and some U.S.-based companies such as Chesapeake Energy have resorted to selling the land their wells are situated on as a means of generating revenues.

Further adding to doubts of the natural gas industry’s ability to generate ample energy, news surfaced earlier this week that the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating the accuracy of the industry’s claims regarding the performance of shale gas wells.

Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence is available here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/pipe-dreams/

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

###

August 4th, 2011

Pipe Dreams: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want you to Know about Fracking and U.S. Energy Independence

Download the PDF File

Impacts of Shale Gas and Shale Oil Extraction on the Environment and on Human Health

download.do (application/pdf Object).

Impacts of Shale Gas and Shale Oil Extraction on the Environment and on Human Health–European Parliament

Abstract
This study discusses the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the
environment and on human health. Quantitative data and qualitative impacts
are taken from US experience since shale gas extraction in Europe still is in its
infancy, while the USA have more than 40 years of experience already having
drilled more than 50,000 wells. Greenhouse gas emissions are also assessed
based on a critical review of existing literature and own calculations. European
legislation is reviewed with respect to hydraulic fracturing activities and
recommendations for further work are given. The potential gas resources and
future availability of shale gas is discussed in face of the present conventional
gas supply and its probable future development.
IP/

RECOMMENDATIONS
 There is no comprehensive directive providing for a European mining law. A publicly
available, comprehensive and detailed analysis of the European regulatory
framework concerning shale gas and tight oil extraction is not available and should
be developed.
 The current EU regulatory framework concerning hydraulic fracturing, which is the
core element in shale gas and tight oil extraction, has a number of gaps. Most
importantly, the threshold for Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out
on hydraulic fracturing activities in hydrocarbon extraction is set far above any
potential industrial activities of this kind, and thus should be lowered substantially.
 The coverage of the water framework Directive should be re-assessed with special
focus on fracturing activities and their possible impacts on surface water.
 In the framework of a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), a thorough cost/benefit analysis
could be a tool to assess the overall benefits for society and its citizens. A
harmonized approach to be applied throughout EU27 should be developed, based on
which responsible authorities can perform their LCA assessments and discuss them
with the public.
 It should be assessed whether the use of toxic chemicals for injection should be
banned in general. At least, all chemicals to be used should be disclosed publicly,
the number of allowed chemicals should be restricted and its use should be
monitored. Statistics about the injected quantities and number of projects should be
collected at European level.
 Regional authorities should be strengthened to take decisions on the permission of
projects which involve hydraulic fracturing. Public participation and LCAassessments
should be mandatory in finding these decisions.
 Where project permits are granted, the monitoring of surface water flows and air
emissions should be mandatory.
 Statistics on accidents and complaints should be collected and analysed at European
level. Where projects are permitted, an independent authority should collect and
review complaints.
 Because of the complex nature of possible impacts and risks to the environment and
to human health of hydraulic fracturing consideration should be given to developing
a new directive at European level regulating all issues in this area comprehensively

The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking | Food & Water Watch

The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking | Food & Water Watch.

Marcellus Shale Adviory Committee_Final_Report.pdf (application/pdf Object)

MSAC_Final_Report.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission Report

7/22/2011

Edwin Austin

Final-2011-PA-Marcellus-Economic-Impacts.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Final-2011-PA-Marcellus-Economic-Impacts.pdf July, 2011

Gov. Cuomo hails Pennsylvania study showing economic boom from hydro fracking – NYPOST.com

Gov. Cuomo hails Pennsylvania study showing economic boom from hydro fracking – NYPOST.com.

New Report Reveals Toxic Air Near Natural Gas Operations 7/12/11

New Report Reveals Toxic Air Near Natural Gas Operations   

Citizen Samples Confirm Neighboring Communities at Risk

FOR RELEASE 7/12/11

Contact:

Denny Larson, Global Community Monitor, 415-845-4705

Josh Joswick, San Juan Citizens Alliance, 970-259-3583

Shirley McNall, San Juan County, NM Residents Worried About Our Health, 505-334-6534

Paul Light, Battlement Concerned Citizens, 970-285-7791

New Report Reveals Toxic Air Near Natural Gas Operations

Citizen Samples Confirm Neighboring Communities at Risk

El Cerrito, CA– Citizen sampling of air quality near natural gas production facilities has identified highly unsafe levels of toxic chemicals near homes, playgrounds, schools and community centers in Colorado and New Mexico. A new report issued by Global Community Monitor, GASSED! Citizen Investigation of Toxic Air Pollution from Natural Gas Development, details the air sampling results, environmental and public health threats with living amid the natural gas boom.

A coalition of environmental and community based organizations in Colorado and New Mexico collected nine air samples that were analyzed by a certified lab. The lab detected a total of 22 toxic chemicals in the air samples, including four known carcinogens, as well as toxins known to damage the nervous system and respiratory irritants. The chemicals detected ranged from 3 to 3,000 times higher than what is considered safe by state and federal agencies. Sampling was conducted in the San Juan Basin area of Colorado and New Mexico, as well as Garfield County in western Colorado.

“Carcinogenic chemicals like benzene and acrylonitrile should not be in the air we breathe – and certainly not at these potentially harmful levels,” said Dr. Mark Chernaik, scientist. “These results suggest neighboring communities are not being protected and their long-term health is being put at risk.”

“My husband, pets, and I have experienced respiratory and other health related problems during the twelve years we have lived on Cow Canyon Road in La Plata County, Colorado.  We believe these health issues are related to the air quality in our neighborhood and in the area,” said Jeri L. Montgomery, neighbor of natural gas development. Through the course of the pilot study, neighbors of natural gas production facilities documented chemical odors and sampled the air. Neighbors have appealed to local, state and national government agencies to investigate their air quality complaints, to limited recourse.

“We are very concerned about the total disregard for the health and welfare of the people “existing” near the sickening toxic oil and gas industry dumps located in neighborhoods such as the land farm on Crouch Mesa and the waste disposal facility in Bloomfield that are permitted and approved by the State of New Mexico and Federal EPA,” said Shirley McNall, member of San Juan County, NM Residents Worried About Our Health.

“Experts and agencies recognize more air monitoring is needed, but it’s not happening,” said Paul Light, co-chair of the Battlement Concerned Citizens. “Rather than wait for the government, we used the Bucket Brigade to collect much-needed air quality information.”

The community and environmental groups in the San Juan Basin and western Colorado worked with Global Community Monitor, which trains community members living near industrial operations to run their own “Bucket Brigade” to sample their air. The Bucket Brigade has been used in 27 countries internationally. The bucket uses EPA methods for testing and an independent lab for air sample analysis.

Complaints about air quality have also surfaced in other states around the country, including West Virginia, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming. Little information exists to educate and inform citizens about the chemicals being stored, emitted into the air, ground or water in close proximity to their homes. “People are getting gassed, and they don’t even know what is coming at them. The air monitoring provides crucial information in understanding what families are being exposed to on a day-to-day basis,” said Denny Larson of Global Community Monitor.

Federal loopholes in the Clean Air Act allow major corporations to circumvent basic protections that put public health first. US EPA is currently drafting new regulations to control and monitor air pollution from natural gas development. Congress is debating new legislation, such as the Bringing Reductions to Energies Air Born Toxic Health Effects (BREATHE) Act.

As regulation moves forward, GASSED! states that solutions are possible. The natural gas industry should invest in pollution controls to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of chemicals in the air. The report also calls for mandatory air monitoring at all natural gas operations and disclosure of chemicals used in the process to local residents.

In addition, the proximity of neighbors and wells is often too close. The report recommends a minimum quarter mile buffer zone between homes, schools and natural gas operations. This is similar to regulations enacted by Tulare County, CA on pesticide spray and St. Charles Parish, LA on industrial development. The report further states, “As the natural gas industry continues to grow, so will the number of families neighboring and affected by the emissions. Industry and government leaders have a unique opportunity to address public health and environmental issues. For coexistence between communities and gas industry to be possible, chemical exposure has to be immediately addressed.”

The full report can be downloaded at: Gassed! Full Report

Download the Appendix:

Complete Air Samples Results Spreadsheet

Full Air Sample Data Interpretation Letter from Mark Chernaik, Phd

IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation — SRREN

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation — SRREN.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

Overview of IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy

Statement of Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, at the 11th session of the IPCC Working Group III, May 2011, Abu Dhabi

New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact May, 2011

 New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact –

For Release 12 May 2011Tod BrilliantPOST CARBON INSTITUTEtod@postcarbon.org707-823-8700 x105
New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact

San Francisco, CA (May 12) A detailed new energy report argues that the natural gas industry has propagated dangerously false claims about natural gas production supply, cost and environmental impact. The report, “Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century” is authored by leading geoscientist and Post Carbon Institute Fellow J. David Hughes.

The most significant of the natural gas industry’s claims – one that has been bought hook, line and sinker by everyone from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the Obama Administration, to leading environmental groups – is that the United States has a 100-year supply of cheap natural gas. The report shows this to be a pipe dream. Natural gas would require higher costs and unprecedented drilling efforts to meet even baseline supply projections. In fact, the U.S. faces a decline in domestic gas supplies in the very near future unless drilling rates quickly increase.

Also debunked is the perception that shale gas is better for the climate than coal. Building on other recent analysis, the report shows that shale gas is worse than coal over a 20-30 year timeframe, even after efforts to mitigate fugitive methane emissions. This should have major implications for those who have touted natural gas as a near-term bridge to a clean energy future.

Download the report at: http://bit.ly/pcinatgas

Report author David Hughes will present his findings and participate in a Q&A session next week.

LINK: http://bit.ly/jZfykT
TELECONFERENCE ONLY: Toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Access Code: 492 172 835
For international toll free access: http://bit.ly/jgcUWx

Post Carbon Institute’s report concludes that we face serious, and heretofore unacknowledged, production constraints with shale gas that mean the following three things are very unlikely to happen:

  1. Meeting the Energy Information Agency’s projections for natural gas to 2035.
  2. Replacing significant amounts of coal-fired electricity with natural gas (not included in EIA projections).
  3. Transitioning significant % of the vehicle fleet to burn natural gas (also not included in EIA projections).

All of three of these would require much higher levels of drilling and higher prices than projected by the EIA. At least 35,000 new wells will need to be drilled each and every year to meet EIA projections. More still to provide more natural gas-fired electricity and far more than this number to transition the vehicle fleet.

Bottom line, we will be living with less domestic natural gas in the future, not more, unless we are prepared to pay higher prices and tolerate a major scale up of climate and other environmental impacts. This is a major challenge to the nearly ubiquitous assumption that we will have abundant, cheap, and “clean” natural gas to power our future.

ABOUT J. DAVID HUGHES

J. David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources. As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. He is currently president of a consultancy dedicated to research on energy and sustainability issues.

ABOUT POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Post Carbon Institute provides individuals, communities, businesses, and governments with the resources needed to understand and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and environmental crises that define the 21st century. PCI envisions a world of resilient communities and re-localized economies that thrive within ecological bounds.

In addition to Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute Fellows include Bill McKibben, Sandra Postel, Wes Jackson, David Orr and 24 others.

POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Tel: +1.707.823.8700 • Fax: +1.866.797.5820
http://www.postcarbon.org   •   media@postcarbon.org