Shale Gas, Frac on - The Economist, Nov 26-Dec 2 2011

"Energy firms often call (natural) gas a clean fuel: burning it releases roughly half as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning coal does. So, if gas fired power stations are built instead of coal fired ones, the cheap (shale) gas bonanza will help control global warming. Unfortunately though, they probably will not be. Few new coal fired power stations are planned in America or Europe anyway. And China, which also has lots of unexploited shale gas, has few scruples about burning cheap coal. Either way, gas fired power stations are more likely to substitute for solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power stations.

The only way of ensuring that does not happen is to price fossil fuels to cover the environmental damage they do.

Power generated from coal would carry a high carbon price tag; power generated from gas a smaller one; power generated from renewables none at all."

This extract from the The Economist Leader entitled: Shale Gas Frac on, published in the November 26th - December 2nd 2011 issue is the first time I have seen a direct reference to the "real" cost of fossil fuels together with acknowledgement that the only way to start addressing the damage to the environment, is to factor in the cost of pollution.

Ideally, The Economist and everyone else should focus on this and build consensus, ultimately leading to the Environmentally Neutral approach I've been advocating on this Blog and on the Environmental Energy Facebook page.

Economist Debate on Carbon Capture & Storage, November 2011

In November 2011, The Economist held an online debate on the following:

"This house believes that climate-control policies cannot rely on carbon capture and storage"

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/781/showCommentModule:1

My contribution is included below...

Dear Sir,

We will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and therefore continuing to pollute. CCS is not currently economically viable and unless it's commerciality improves, it won't happen.

The debate appears to be about the relative effectiveness of CCS in mitigating climate change.  This is largely irrelevant because if the process isn't economic, it won't happen.

So, how can CCS, or other pollutant reduction programmes be economic?

The extremely simple answer is by Governments legislating that, in 10 years time all products and processes must, by law, result in an environmentally neutral outcome.

How this would work...

Products and processes that pollute are allowed; however the cost of the product or process includes the cost of dealing with the resulting pollution. For example:

Cost to produce and market 1 litre of petrol: £0.65

Cost to remove pollution from usage of 1 litre of petrol: £15.00

REAL cost of 1 litre of petrol: £15.65

The £15 is used, by a new industry, to remove pollutants from the environment, thereby maintaining an environmentally neutral situation.

Rather than agonising over the potential effectiveness of CCS, Economists and true scientists should focus on the main issue which is that the REAL cost of fossil fuels (and other products that pollute, such as cement), is artificially low because the cost of dealing with the pollution has been ignored.

The sooner Economists wake up to the fact that their discipline is actually governed by the whole Planet's condition and factor in the full costs; Policymakers can be advised more effectively and the correct strategies adopted, sooner rather than later.

Sounds simple....

It is.

Can it be done?

Yes.

Will many learned people be nay-sayers?

Yes.

Politically it will be difficult even though technically & philosophically, it's straight-forward.

So let's promote the simple solution and build consensus around it, so as to make it easier for the Politicians to understand and then adopt the approach.

Lastly, how about a debate along these lines:

"If we are to avoid altering our environment as a result of pollution; simple economics indicates that products that cause pollution should include the cost of removing said pollution"

I'd be interested to hear people's valid arguments against this proposal.

I've been using the analogy of past human behaviour when, in Medieval times, people simply threw waste and excrement into the street.  This could be done because it was the easiest approach and more importantly, did not incur a cost.

Over time we learned that doing this in fact, did have a cost and we now pay for sewage disposal.

Adding pollutants to the environment is analogous to Medieval waste disposal. What we haven't grasped, particularly the Economists, is that by ignoring the cost of current pollution, is actually the issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

The missing element is the modern equivalent of the sewerage system, which is a new industry designed to remove pollutants from the environment.  Carbon Capture & Storage could be an element of this new industry; however it won't be unless the cost of pollution is borne by the consumer and then directed to the "pollution-control" industry.  All of which is basic economics, not rocket science!

Sadly Economists and many Scientists as well as Politicians do not understand this, or if they do, they're not articulating it.

Thoughts?