Ethical Issues With Relying On Natural Gas As A Solution To Climate Change

Ethical Issues with Relying on Natural Gas as a Solution to Climate Change
http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2013/05/20/ethical-issues-with-rely...
Donald Brown
Hom e St ar tHer e and I ndex AboutEt hi csand Cl i m at e Bl ogr ol l Cont act
Et hi calI ssueswi t h Rel yi ngon Nat ur alGasasa Sol ut i on t o Cl i m at eChange
Sear c h
Subscr i be
Cat egor i es
Adaptation and Responsibility for Damages (13) agenda 21 (4) Allocation Issues (15) Atmospheric Targets (27) cancun (3)
I. Introduction Interest in tackling climate change in the United States has increased somewhat recently in response to global CO2 atmospheric concentrations reaching 400 ppm, although there is almost no hope of new federal legislation soon. Many claims have been made recently that increased use of natural gas is an important element in any US response to climate change. In this regard, the natural gas industry has made a considerable effort to convince citizens that natural gas from hydraulic fracking is part of the solution to climate change. As an example, the following is from a gas industry website.
cap and trade (3) climate change and markets (9) climate change commercials (1) climate change disinformation (12) climate change ethics (41) climate change governence (11) climate change impacts (5) climate change policy-making (32)
Because carbon dioxide makes up such a high proportion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reducing carbon dioxide emissions can play a pivotal role in combating the greenhouse effect and global warming. The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 % less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 % less carbon dioxide than coal. One issue that has arisen with respect to natural gas and the greenhouse effect is the fact that methane, the principle component of natural gas, is itself a potent
climate change video (3) climate ethics (17) Contraction and Convergence (3) Copenhagen (7) crime against humanity (7)
1 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
greenhouse gas. Methane has an ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. According to the Energy Information Administration, although methane emissions account for only 1.1 % of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, they account for 8.5 % of the greenhouse gas emissions based on global warming potential. Sources of methane emissions in the U.S. include the waste management and operations industry, the agricultural industry, as well as leaks and emissions from the oil and gas industry itself. A major study performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Gas Research Institute (GRI), now Gas Technology Institute, in 1997 sought to discover whether the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from increased natural gas use would be offset by a possible increased level of methane emissions. The study concluded that the reduction in emissions from increased natural gas use strongly outweighs the detrimental effects of increased methane emissions. More recently in 2011, researchers at the Carnegie Mellon University released Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas, a report comparing greenhouse gas emissions from the Marcellus Shale region with emissions from coal used for electricity generation. The authors found that wells in the Marcellus region emit 20 percent to 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal used to produce electricity. (Naturalgas. org, 2013)
disinformation campaign (see also climate change disinformation) (5) Distributive and International Justice (18) Durban (2) Duty to aknowledge risk (8) Economics and Climate Change (23) Economics and Cost (25) equity and climate change (5) ethical questions raised by climate change (28) ethics and energy policy (12) ethics and scientific uncertainty, Add category (12) ethics of anti-Agenda 21 campaign (3) ethics of climate change (31) fair ghg emissions targets (4) General Climate Ethics (86)
The interest in natural gas combustion as a potential solution to climate change has been gaining because US ghg emissions have fallen somewhat as natural gas from hydraulic fracturing technologies has been rapidly replacing coal in electricity sector generation. In this regard, for instance, Reuters recently reported in regard to recent drops in US ghg emissions that: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use in the first quarter of this year fell to their lowest level in the U.S. in 20 years, as demand shifted to natural gas-fired generation from coal-fired electricity due to record low gas prices, the energy department said. (Reuters, 2012) The US natural gas industry has often argued that a switch to natural gas will significantly reduce ghg emissions from the electricity sector because natural gas emits almost 50 % less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal combustion. For this reason, natural gas is often referred to as a bridge fuel. (See, e.g, Kirkland) The following chart shows the amount of pollutants including CO2 from natural gas, oil, and coal combustion.
Mitigation (4) natural gas and climate change (1) Obama and climate change (4) Practical need to see climate change ethical issues Add category (6) Presiden Obama and climate change (4) press and climate change (8) Procedural Justice and Fair Process (8) propaganda and climate change (2) Qatar climate negotiations (2) Just allocation of gig emissions (2) liability for climate change (1) magnitude of needed greenhouse emissions reductions (5) Market Theory (1) Media and climate change (5) Media Coverage of Climate Change (13) global warming ethics (41) Higher education and climate change ethics (3) Human Rights-Universal Rights (7) hurricanes and climate change (1) Independent Responsibility to Act (11)
2 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
As we can see from this chart, natural gas combustion as a source of electricity generation produces about 70 % of the CO2 as oil and 56 % of the CO2 compared to coal without including methane leakage amounts, a matter discussed below. Yet controversies remain about whether natural gas should be understood as a solution to climate change and if so to what extent. This article first identifies the controversies and then reviews these issues through an ethical lens. II. The Controversies Two controversies about the efficacy of switching from coal to natural gas combustion in the production of electricity need to be resolved before conclusions on the beneficial effects of natural gas in reducing ghg emissions can be made. These controversies are: (a) Lingering issues about methane leakage rates, and (b) The inability of current natural gas combustion technology to achieve the magnitude of ghg emissions required to prevent dangerous climate change particularly in the medium- to long-term. A. Unresolved Methane Leakage Rates Natural gas is mostly methane, a potent ghg. Natural gas production from hydraulic fracturing is known to leak methane. It is usually assumed that replacing coal with gas would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as long as the leakage of methane into the air from gas production does not exceed 3.6%. (Reuters, 2012) Yet significant controversies remain about actual methane leakage rates. In this regard recently there has been a flurry of conflicting papers about methane leakage rates from natural gas production. For instance, US EPA concluded that methane leakage was 2.4% of total natural-gas production in 2009. Other recent studies have found leakage rates of 4% and 9% from hydraulic fracturing operations in Colorado and Utah. (Tollefson, 2013) As a result, no rational climate change action plan or ghg inventory should ignore controversies about methane leakage from hydraulic fracking operations. Until methane leakage rates are scientifically determined, any ghg inventory or projection of future emissions should identify the range of leakage rates that appear in the extant literature. In addition to leakage rates from natural gas production facilities, methane leakage is also known to occur in natural gas transmission lines as well as from vehicles powered by natural gas and other end uses of natural gas. Therefore, actual methane leakage rates into the atmosphere from natural gas need to be based on the sum of leakage from all of these sources that include production, transmission, and end use. Because methane leakage rate controversies are not yet resolved, any climate change action plan must be transparent about the limitations of predicting ghg emissions from natural gas consumption and fully identify all uncertainties about leakage rates. (b) The Need To Move Aggressively To Non-Fossil Renewable Energy Even If Natural Gas Proves to Be A Short-Term Bridge Fuel To understand why natural gas combustion in the electricity sector is not likely be an adequate solution to climate change in the long-term, it is necessary to understand the scale of the problem facing the world. The international community agreed in climate change negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in 2009 that the international community should limit warming to 2C to prevent dangerous climate change. In fact, countries agreed to further assess whether the 2C warming limit needs to be replaced by a more stringent 1.5C warming limit to avoid dangerous climate change impacts. This
reasonable skepticism (17) renewable energy ethics (3) Romney and climate (1) scientific disinformation (20) Scientific Uncertainty and Risk (35) states and climate change (1) subnational governments and climate change (1) sustainability ethics (9) sustainability law (4) sustainable development (5) sustainable development ethics (4) temperature limits (1) the ethics of natural gas and climate change (1) tornadoes (1) Trading Issues (2) Uncategorized (2) united nations (1) US Climate Ethics (20) US Congress and climate change ethics (14) US media and climate change (7) US participation in international climate negotiations (11) US responsibilitlty (26) Video (11) wind power (1)
Ar chi ves M ont h/ Year
Recent l y Bl ogged
An Ethical Analysis of Obamas Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. Property Rights and Sustainability Equity Remains At The Center of Bonn Climate Change Talks An Opportunity to Learn About Links Between Global Governance and Environmental Ethics Responding To the Anti-Agenda 21
3 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
conclusion was confirmed in climate negotiations in Cancun in 2010, in Durban in 2011, and in Doha in 2012. A 2C warming limit was chosen because there is substantial scientific evidence that warming above 2C could trigger rapid, non-linear climate change threatening hundreds of millions of people around the world and the ecological systems on which life depends. Even if rapid climate change is not triggered if the 2C warming is exceeded, this amount of warming will create huge harms to some people and nations around the world. Stabilizing CO2 equivalent concentrations at 450 ppm would only result in a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to 2C, and that it would be necessary to achieve stabilisation below 400 ppm to give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2C. (Report of the Scientific Steering Committee of the International Symposium on the Stabilization of Greenhouse Gases) Limiting warming to 2C or less will require reductions in global ghg emissions below current emissions by as much as 80 percent by mid-century for the entire world and as we explained in the a recent article on equity at even greater reduction levels for most developed countries. (see On the Extraordinary Urgency of Nations Responding To Climate Change on the Basis of Equity.) And so, the challenge facing the world to limit future warming to tolerable levels is extraordinarily daunting and will likely require a level of global cooperation far beyond any other previous human problem. Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at levels that will avoid dangerous climate change requires immediate action. The entire world will need to peak its ghg emissions as soon as possible followed by emissions reductions at extraordinarily ambitious rates over the next 30 years. The longer it takes for world ghg emissions to peak and the higher ghg emissions levels are when peaking is achieved, the steeper global emissions reductions need to be to prevent dangerous levels of warming. The following chart shows the emissions reduction pathways that are needed in this century to give the world any reasonable hope of limiting warming to 2C, assuming global emissions continue to rise at current levels during the next few years.
Disinformation Campaign: A Rigorous Look At The Campaigns Untruthful Claims.
RecentCom m ent s
Charles Mulenga on An Ethical Analysis of Obamas Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. CHARLES AGBOKLU on An Ethical Analysis of Obamas Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. Donald A. Brown on An Ethical Analysis of Obamas Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. John Lemons on An Ethical Analysis of Obamas Climate Speech, the Adverse Political Reaction to It, and the Media Response. Donald A. Brown on Property Rights and Sustainability
Tags
Agenda 21 and ethics anti-Agenda
barriers to climate change policy

21campaign barriers to sustainability
cliamte
justice
climate change
climate
change and morality climate change

denial climate change deniers climate change disinformation climate change disinformation
campaign
climate change policy

climate change skepticism skeptics climate change
climate change video
(Anderson, 2012) And so it is clear that the later the peaking of total global emissions, the steeper the reduction pathways that are needed. Further scientific analysis may reveal that methane leakage rates may be small enough to provide climate change emissions reduction benefits when coal combustion of electricity production is replaced by natural gas combustion. As we have seen this is an ongoing controversy about which further scientific analysis is needed. Still, as explained below, given the enormity of global reductions of ghg emissions that are necessary to prevent dangerous climate change, natural gas is likely only to be a short-term bridge fuel. (IEA, 2012)
climate ethics climate ethics and policy

economics and ethics of climate change equity and climate change
ethics and climate
Ethics and Global Warming ethics of

change policy
climate change
ethics of global
fair allocation of national
warming
4 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
This is so because according to a recent International Energy Agency (IEA) report, natural gas can play at best a limited, very temporary role if climate objectives are to be met. That is, greater ghg emissions reductions are needed to prevent 2C warming than those that can be achieved by switching from coal to natural gas combustion. And so mos observers argue that the only viable response to the threat of catastrophic climate change is rapid deployment of existing carbon-free technology. (IEA, 2012) Even if natural gas combustion creates a 50 percent less CO2 per unit of energy produced, an amount which is beyond best case on ghg emission reductions, it will not produce the greater emissions reductions necessary in the next 30 years necessary to give any hope of restricting warming to potentially catastrophic levels. In short, natural gas combustion cant get us where we need to be just a few decades out. It might help in the short term, but we need massive investment in non-fossil technology as soon as possible. In addition if coal combustion were to be replaced now by non-fossil fuel energy, it would help immediately much more than conversion of coal to natural gas combustion does with putting the world on an urgently needed ghg emissions reduction pathway that gives more hope of preventing catastrophic warming. There are also other significant benefits of moving quickly to non-fossil fuels. For instance, according to IEA report, fuel savings from investment in non-fossil fuel technologies will pay for the investments. (IEA, 2012) Even if natural gas is a short-term bridge fuel, delay in investing in non-fossil fuel technologies may make it impossible to meet the emissions reductions targets needed to prevent dangerous climate change. For this reason, any climate action strategy must look at emissions reductions pathways beyond 2020 necessary to limit warming to 2oC and consider what amounts of non-fossil energy are needed through 2050. Because huge amounts of non-fossil energy will very likely be required to allow the United States and other developed nations reduce their carbon foot-print to levels required to meet their fair share of safe global emissions, the more rapid the ramp up of non-fossil energy the easier it will be to reach acceptable ghg emissions levels in the years ahead. Furthermore, the IEA report makes it clear that abundant cheap natural gas could push renewables out of the market unless there is a price on carbon or aggressive economic support for non-fossil renewable energy. It is also possible that cheaper natural gas prices may lead to higher rates of consumption of electricity creating higher CO2 emissions. For this reason, any reliance on natural gas combustion as a method of reducing CO2 emissions must provide for ramped up commitments to non-fossil fuel sources of energy at levels needed to prevent dangerous climate change. Reliance on natural gas alone will not achieve the 80%-95% reductions required of developed nations to prevent dangerous climate change. Barriers to much more aggressive use of non-fossil combustion appear to be a lack of political will coupled and arguments about prohibitively high costs of non-fossil energy. We will now examine these issues through an ethical lens. III. Ethical Analysis of the Natural Gas and Climate Change Controversies Natural gas hydraulic fracturing technologies have created issues about social and environmental impacts that are beyond the scope of this article. Here we more narrowly examine ethical questions raised by reliance on natural gas as a solution to climate change. Depending on how the methane leakage controversy is resolved, switching from coal
global warming ethics global

greenhouse gas targets warming video
sustainability introduction to climate ethics obstacles to Obama and climate change Qatar climate change negotiations
scientific uncertainty and climate change skepticism and climate

Romney and Climate Change
change sustainability ethics sustainable development and ethics.

media and climate change
the
US climate
US ethical responsibility for climate change.

change policy US media and climate change US media failure on climate change US press and climate change US response to climate change video on climate
change ethics
M et a
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org
5 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
combustion to natural gas combustion could help lower ghg emissions from the electricity sector in the short term. Given that the United States has strong ethical responsibilities to rapidly reduce its carbon footprint, a matter examined extensively in Ethicsandclimate.org, one might initially conclude that as a matter of ethics switching to natural gas from coal combustion is ethically justifiable as a short-term strategy. Yet, undeniably replacement of coal combustion with non-fossil energy would create a much greater reduction in the long run in the US carbon footprint than a shift to natural gas from coal combustion would alone. As we noted above, objections to moving immediately to non-fossil energy are lack of political will and cost arguments. We now look at these political and cost arguments through an ethical lens. A. The United States and Other High-Emitting Nations Have A Duty to Reduce Their Carbon Footprint As Rapidly and Dramatically As Reasonably Possible No reasonable ethical theory could justify current US projected ghg emissions, including projected reductions that are expected to come from increased substitution of coal with natural gas at least in the medium to long term. This is so for many reasons including, first, as we have explained in considerable detail in the recent article on climate change equity, US emissions far exceed global averages in per capita emissions, the US is by far the largest contributor to historical emission which have raised atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from approximately 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and the world is now running out of time to limit warming to non-dangerous levels. Because, as we have demonstrated in the recent article on equity and climate change, there are approximately 50 ppm of CO2 equivalent atmospheric space that remain to be allocated among all nations to give the world approximately a 50% chance of avoiding a 2oC warming and developing nations that have done little to elevate atmospheric CO2 to current levels need a significant portion of the remaining atmospheric space , high emitting developed nations need to reduce their emissions as fast as possible to levels that represent their fair share of the remaining acceptable global budget. (See On the Extraordinary Urgency of Nations Responding To Climate Change on the Basis of Equity.) For this reason, high-emitting nations have strong ethical duties to reduce their ghg emissions as fast as possible to their fair share of safe global emissions. Without doubt, this means that the United States has an ethical duty to reduce emissions both in the short and long run faster than switching to natural gas combustion from coal sector will allow by itself. As we have previously explained in EthicsandClimate.org there is now a scientific consensus that developed countries must limit their ghg emissions by as much as 25% to 40 % below 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and between 80% and 95% below1990 levels by 2050 to have any reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change which would require atmospheric ghg concentrations to be stabilized at 450 ppm. (IPCC, 2007: 776) (Also see, What You Need To Know to Understand the Scale of the Climate Change Problem and The Continuing US Press Failure to Report on the Urgency of this Civilization Challenging Threat) The actual amount of emissions reductions that are needed between now and 2020 is somewhat of a moving target depending on the level of uncertainty that society is willing to accept that a dangerous warming limit will be exceeded, the most recent increases in ghg emissions rates, and assumptions about when global ghg emissions peak before beginning rapid reduction rates.
6 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
One new study shows that we have to reduce emissions even more than scientists initially thought in order to avoid climate changes worst impacts. A paper published in Energy Policy on February 20, 2013 by Michel den Elzen and colleagues examines new information on likely future emissions trajectories in developing countries. (Ezden, 2013) As a result, the report finds that developed countries must reduce their emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2020 if we are to have a medium chance of limiting warming to 2C, thus preventing some of climate changes worst impacts. As we have seen above, to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at levels that will avoid dangerous climate change the entire world will need to peak its emissions in the next few years followed by emissions reductions at hard to imagine rates over the next 30 years. As we have also explained in EthicsandClimate. org, US reductions need to be much greater than average reduction levels required of the entire world as a matter of equity because the United States emissions are among the worlds highest in terms of per capita and historical emissions and there is precious little atmospheric space remaining for additional ghg emissions if the world is serious about avoiding dangerous climate change. (See, What You Need To Know to Understand the Scale of the Climate Change Problem and The Continuing US Press Failure to Report on the Urgency of this Civilization Challenging Threat) No matter what reasonable assumptions are made about carbon budgets that need to guide the worlds response to avoid dangerous climate change, as a matter of ethics, the US has a duty to reduce its ghg emissions both in the short and long run to levels much greater than switching to natural gas combustion from coal will accomplish by iteslf. Even if switching to natural gas in the short term reduces the US carbon footprint somewhat, it is still not sufficient by itself to put the US on an emissions reduction pathway consistent with its ethical obligations without other policy interventions including putting a price on carbon or rapid ramp up of renewable energy. Given that the natural gas is likely to reduce costs of electricity production, there is also some risk that with lower costs demand for electricity will increase which will undermine both incentives for finding increases in efficiency while raising ghg emissions levels. For this reason, the United States needs to create an emissions reduction target consistent with its obligations to the world. (See, On the Extraordinary Urgency of Nations Responding To Climate Change on the Basis of Equity.) Although ethical reflection on benefits of short term switching to natural gas reveals the above ethical questions, long-term reliance on natural gas as a climate change solution raises greater issues of ethical concern. This is so because although switching to natural gas combustion from coal can reduce temporarily the US carbon footprint when coupled with the right policy measures, there is no hope that natural gas combustion alone can achieve the huge emissions reductions necessary to put the United States on an emissions reduction pathway that matches the US ethical obligations to prevent dangerous climate change. The United States urgently needs to adopt policies that will ramp up its use of non-fossil energy immediately. Investment in natural gas combustion could delay investment in non-fossil energy. Moreover the amount of non-fossil energy needed to put the US on an emissions reduction pathway consistent with its ethical obligations requires the United States to begin immediately as a matter of ethics. The longer the United States waits to move more aggressively to increase the share of non-fossil energy, the more difficult, if
7 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
not impossible, it will be to meet non-fossil energy needs a few decades from now. And so as a matter of ethics a strong case can be made that the United States needs immediately to adopt policies designed to aggressively increase levels of non-fossil energy. And so if political will is a barrier to greater use of non-fossil energy, politicians resisting greater commitment to non-fossil energy are most likely supporting positions that fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny. The fact that much greater US commitments to renewable energy are feasible is demonstrated by looking at achievements of other nations. Germany, for instance, has set a goal of 100% renewable energy in its electricity sector by 2050. (The Gaurdian, 2010) Germanys Environment Agencys study found that switching to 100 % green electricity by 2050 would have economic advantages, especially for the vital export-oriented manufacturing industry (The Gaurdian, 2010) It would also create tens of thousands of jobs. B. Ethical Analysis of Cost Arguments In Opposition to Non-Fossil Electricity Generation There are many factual issues that could be contested in regard to any argument that switching to a non-fossil fuel future is cost-prohibitive. As we have seen, for instance, Germany claimd that an aggressive move to a non-fossil future has economic benefits. (For a good discussion of economic arguments for aggressive policies in support of renewable energy see, Germany Energy Transition, Henric Boll, 2012) Cost arguments made in opposition to aggressive policies in support of a non-fossil future many not only be challenged on a factual basis but also on an ethical basis. There are several ethical issues raised by such cost arguments that have been extensively looked at in prior articles in EthicsandClimate.org. These ethical issues include Cost arguments are often deeply ethically problematic because they ignore duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others to reduce ghg emissions. That is, cost arguments usually appeal to matters of self-interest and ignore responsibilities to others including the tens of millions of poor people around the world that are already suffering from climate change impacts or who are much more vulnerable to much harsher climate change impacts in the future than the United States is. Cost arguments are ethically problematic if they fail to examine the costs of non-action and only consider the costs to high emitters of reducing ghg emissions. Given that most economists now believe that costs of non-action far exceed costs of reducing the threat of climate change, costs considerations that only consider costs to polluters are both deeply ethically troublesome and radically incomplete. Costs arguments may not be made against climate change policies if greenhouse gas emissions lead to serious human rights violations of victims who have not consented to be put at risk. Cost arguments often translate all values to economic values measured in markets and thereby transform some things that victims hold have sacred
8 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
value into commodity value. Cost arguments usually ignore questions of distributive justice while arguing that government policy should be based upon maximizing economic efficiency or utility. Distributive justice issues that are frequently ignored by the use of cost arguments to oppose climate policy include the fact that costs would be imposed on those who are causing the problem yet the victims of climate change that would benefit from taking action are some of the poorest people around the world that have done little to cause the problem Cost arguments usually ignore issues of procedural justice including the right of victims to consent to being put at risk to climate change impacts. Cost arguments alone usually ignore well settled norms of international law including the polluter pays and no harm principles that the United States and almost all other nations have agreed to in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In conclusion, we have identified strong ethical arguments that support the need to ramp up non-fossil fuel combustion in the United States and other developed countries while implicitly acknowledging that there could be some short-term benefit if coal combustion is replaced by natural gas, a conclusion that only can be reached with better understanding of the methane leakage issues. Yet even if there is some short-term benefit from substituting natural gas for coal combustion, there is no ethical basis for doing this without simultaneously aggressively ramping up non-fossil fuel electricity combustion. We note that some in the natural gas industry and their political supporters continue to oppose policies designed to ramp up non-fossil fuel combustion at the same time claiming that natural gas is a solution to climate change. Because the failure to ramp up non-fossil fuel combustion Under the circumstances discussed in this article, such opposition is ethically problematic. By: Donald A Brown Scholar In Residence, Sustainability Ethics and Law Widener University School of Law dabrown57@gmail.com
Category: climate change and markets, climate change ethics, climate change governence, climate change impacts, climate change policy-making, climate ethics, Distributive and International Justice, Economics and Climate Change, Economics and Cost, equity and climate change, ethical questions raised by climate change, ethics and energy policy, General Climate Ethics, Human Rights-Universal Rights, natural gas and climate change, the ethics of natural gas and climate change, US media and climate change, US participation in international climate negotiations, US responsibilitlty Tag: barriers to climate change policy, climate change and morality, climate change ethics, ethical issues raised by relying on nattural gas as a solution to climate change, Ethics and Climate Change, Ethics and Global Warming, natiural gas and climate change, US climate change policy, US ethical responsibility for climate change., US press and climate change
M ay20, 201 3 at6: 1 6 am
2 com m ent s
Donal d A. Br own
2 Responses
9 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM
L eave a Com m ent

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
Send Com m ent
Proudly powered by WordPress. Design by wplook
10 of 10
7/10/2013 3:12 PM

Ethical Issues With Relying On Natural Gas As A Solution To Climate Change

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ethical Issues With Relying On Natural Gas As A Solution To Climate Change

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ethical Issues with Relying on Natural Gas as a Solution to Climate Change