“The International Energy Agency has a new report out, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. Unfortunately, the IEA buried the lede — the Golden Age of Gas scenario destroys a livable climate — so the coverage of the report was off target.”

and then goes on to say,

The Golden Rules Case puts CO2 emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions at around 650 parts per million, a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius (°C) in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C target. This finding reinforces a central conclusion from the WEO special report on a Golden Age of Gas (IEA, 2011b), that, while a greater role for natural gas in the global energy mix does bring environmental benefits where it substitutes for other fossil fuels, natural gas cannot on its own provide the answer to the challenge of climate change.

The thought that the powers to be are contemplating ‘stabilising’ CO2 at 650 ppm is truly frightening. Something I shall be writing about on Learning from Dogs over the coming days.

In conclusion, Martin, a great post from you, and thank you.

As the fine folks at Climate Progress put it, natural gas is a bridge to nowhere. You may want to read a post on Climate Progress titled “International Energy Agency Finds ‘Safe’ Gas Fracking Would Destroy A Livable Climate”. Here is the link: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/30/491970/international-energy-agency-finds-safe-gas-fracking-would-destroy-a-livable-climate/

I wonder: is it insanity, ignorance, denial, or a combination of all of the above?

By the way, despite the fact that I do not know who you are, I am incredibly jealous that you are going to hear Mr. McKibben live. : )
I hope you get some inspiration and motivation from his talk.

Here in the UK, most of our coal is now inaccessible (i.e. you cannot de-water and re-enter an underground coal mine once it has flooded), and I see no sign of anyone deciding to leave shallow/recoverable coal in the ground; even less so in the USA (where underground coal mining remains feasible too). Therefore, do you really think that oil shale gas (and even worse tar sands) will be pursued instead of coal? Despite what The Economist says, I see no evidence of a switch to gas; other than that forced upon us by the reality of diminishing reserves of coal.

So then, all I can see is a determination to burn all the Earth’s fossil fuels just because they are there; which is not a story that can have a happy ending. Therefore, if this is going to be the strategy that humanity sticks with (as a result of inertia and propaganda), then Patrice Ayme is right, we should stop talking about ‘climate change’ and start talking abut ‘biosphere collapse’…

I’m not arguing against working as hard as we can to enable mankind to use the planet’s resources in a renewable and sustainable fashion.

But that is not something that is going to happen overnight, or even in the next couple of decades, even given international support by the majority of governments. That’s not being pessimistic, it’s just being realistic.

So if a massive switch to gas for as many energy purposes as possible would speed up the demise of coal then, surely, that’s a legitimate plan to examine. If the world was to stop using coal in the next 5 years, that would be an incredibly positive outcome, which could be followed by a switch away from gas in the next 5 years, hopefully with a switch away from oil products over the same time-frame.

You finished your Post by writing, “I think we are more likely to be digging our own grave.” So, go on, say what you think would be a _realistic_ alternative that acknowledges where mankind has got itself.

As Aristotle is rumoured to have written, “Hope is the dream of a waking man.” So what avenues offer us hope?

Just as I suspect that CCS can be made reasonably safe, so I suspect that the technological failings that have given rise to the problems recounted in the video can be minimised; but they will never be eliminated. Furthermore, given that neither of us would want to second-guess James Hansen on the likelihood that burning all the Earth’s unconventional fossil fuels (instead of leaving them in the ground) will induce a runaway greenhouse effect, I find it hard to understand how you can be in favour of fracking.

Hansen’s argument reduces to this:
– Many members of OPEC cannot be expected to stop exploiting fossil fuels because their economies are so heavily dependent on the export revenue [although Saudi Arabia is already investing in solar because its oil is running out but - since they are trying to keep it quiet - please don't tell them I told you ].
– Many poorer countries with lots of coal cannot be expected to make the investment in anything other than low-tech non-renewable energy solutions; so we must assume that they will burn all their coal.

Therefore, the moral responsibility to make wise choices falls on those most able to make them: We should stop shuffling the deck of fossil fuel cards altogether. We should, in short, stop mining coal, oil and gas (for energy generation purposes at least). The alternatives exist; and the only reason this is not happening (along with maximising fuel efficiency and minimising consumption), is that fossil fuel exploitation is being so heavily subsidised. So, I have to ask, have you signed the 350.org petition yet?

“THE story of America’s shale-gas revolution offers hope in hard times. The ground was laid in the late 1990s, when a now-fabled Texan oilman, George Mitchell, developed an affordable way to extract natural gas locked up in shale rock and other geological formations. It involves blasting them with water, sand and chemicals—a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”. America’s shale-gas industry has since drilled 20,000 wells, created hundreds of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly, and provided lots of cheap gas. This is a huge advantage to American industry and a relief to those who fret about American energy security.”

—

But the thrust of the argument is later,

“But the risks from shale gas can be managed. Properly concreted well-shafts do not leak; regurgitants can be collected and made safe; preventing gas venting and flaring would limit methane emissions to acceptable levels; and the risk of tremors, which commonly occur as a result of conventional oil-and-gas activities, can be contained by careful monitoring. The IEA estimates that such measures would add 7% to the cost of the average shale-gas well. That is a small price to pay for environmental protection and the health of a promising industry.

For as well as posing environmental risks, a gas boom would bring an important environmental benefit. Burning gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal; so where gas substitutes for coal, emissions will fall. America’s emissions have fallen by 450m tonnes in the past five years, more than any other country’s. Ironically, given its far greater effort to tackle climate change, the European Union has seen its emissions rise, partly because of an increase in coal-fired power generation in response to Europe’s high gas price.

Cleaner, but not clean enough

By itself, switching to gas will not reduce emissions to anything like the levels required to avoid a high risk of serious climate change. This will take much crunchier policies to boost renewable-energy sources and other clean technologies—starting with a strong price on carbon emissions, through a market-based mechanism or, preferably, a carbon tax. Governments are understandably unwilling to take these steps in straitened times. Yet they should plan to do so; and in the coming years cheap gas could help free cash for more investment in low-carbon technologies. Otherwise the bonanza would be squandered.”

—

These points shouldn’t be ignored. If the world stopped consuming coal tomorrow but continued with fracking then everyone concerned with the fate of the biosphere would cheer from the roof-tops.