When and How to Oppose Fossil Fuels

The answer is clear: “It depends.”

There’s been a lot of talk about whether climate policy should focus on promoting clean energy or should push hard to limit fossil fuels.  To some extent, these are two side of the same coin.  Yet, the politics could be very different.  And there are some “abundance” advocates who support expanding all sources of energy, including fossil fuels.   My main point here is to that the debate has been too simplistic. What stance to take about opposing fossil fuels depends on who you are and where you sit, which fossil fuel is involved, and what kind of regulation is at issue.  The nuances matter here, and the stakes are huge.

Where do you sit, and what’s your goal?

The issue about opposing fossil fuels can arise for different people in different ways.  You could be asking about someone like Andy Beshear, the Democratic governor of Kentucky; or a California voter like me; or a lobbyist for an environmental group.

Your answer may also depend on how idealistic you are.  I sympathize with people who want to draw a principled line in the sand.  I sympathize, but I think there’s an especially strong case regarding climate change to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good.  The reason is that delay in cutting emissions is really harmful. As with all policies, waiting until you’re able to get your ideal policy allows harm to continue in the meantime.  In terms of carbon emissions, however, delay also means adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere that will keep warming the planet for centuries. Unless you’re very confident about the prospects for adopting a radical policy relatively quickly, that seems like a heavy pricew to pay.

The argument by some abundance advocates to embrace fossil fuels also seems like a mistake.  The reality is that fossil fuels carry substantial environmental costs throughout their life cycle from production to combustion and sometimes beyond.   Some of those costs accrue immediately; others will be paid for decades if not centuries to come. Abundance theorists seem to deal with this reality by largely ignoring it.  As discussed below, the extent of the cost may vary depending on whether we’re talking gasoline/diesel, natural gas, or coal. It may also vary depending on context.  All of that is discussed below.

Which fossil fuel?

Coal is the most damaging fossil fuel in terms of public health, warming effects, and landscape impacts.  It’s also more costly than renewables or natural gas.  The only reason to support coal production or use is that you have no alternative, which is likely to be true only for politicians in states that are unusually reliant on coal.

We’re going to have gas and diesel cars on the road for years to come, and they’re going to continue to require fuel.  It’s not realistic to imagine halting production of these fuels.  Voters are also very sensitive to fuel costs. That’s not a reason, however, to throw out the rulebook for these energy sources.  It does mean that there’s some wiggle-room in terms of regulatory strictness.  The ultimate goal must be an all-electric fleet, but we can’t get there overnight.

Natural gas is more complicated because there are disputes about its impacts. This seems to debate on two factors: (1) how much gas leakage takes place, and (2) how much does natural gas displace coal rather than renewables?  Leakage matters because natural gas (methane) is itself a potent greenhouse gas.  It also matters whether natural gas is displacing a dirtier energy source or a cleaner one?  Those issues are too big for me to try to settle them here.  They do make restrictions on natural gas more complicated than restrictions on other fossil fuels.

Use, production, or transport of fossil fuels?

Regulation could relate to the use of fossil fuels, their production, or their transport.  The issues vary between these three domains. In policy terms, the biggest issue is whether a particular activity displaces a cleaner one or a dirtier one.  The way this plays out varies for different fuels.

Let’s begin with export issues. I am skeptical of claims that exports of U.S. coal will reliably displace the use of local coals that are even less environmentally desirable.  It’s also hard to see any positive effects from export of oil except on oil company profits. There are arguments that US oil production is cleaner than its foreign competitors, but I’d want to see hard evidence of that. We should keep in mind, however,

Natural gas exports are more complicated. Exports to Europe have a national security dimension since we don’t want Europe to depend on Russian gas.  Exports to Asia have a better prospect for displacing coal, which is a positive.  My presumption would be against approving new natural gas export, but I might be argued out of that view in some cases.  On the other hand, unless there’s some political reason to approve such projects, the policy nuances aren’t likely to make a lot of difference. It’s in the cases where opposition has some political cost, but not a huge one, that examining the policy effects of a particular policy is most important.

Domestic transportation, especially gas pipelines, also raises some tricky issues.  The impact of a gas pipeline on emissions depends on how much it increases gas production as opposed to diverting production to different end users.  It also depends on whether the gas will displace the use of coal or oil for heating or will discourage the development of renewables.  The Supreme Court has also made it harder to challenge proposed pipelines by dramatically truncating the range of environmental issues that need to be considered.

In terms of production, unless you’re in one of the few states where coal mining is particularly important, there seems to be little reason to hold back on opposition to coal production.  Natural gas and oil production are probably politically salient in more places, and the policy issues are less clear.  There’s another factor, however:  It’s proved hard in practice to suppress oil and gas production, due to restrictions from the courts and sometimes Congress.  I wouldn’t make that a core part of my strategy.

I would certainly try to undo the Trump Administration’s efforts to actively encourage fossil fuels by dropping normal environmental restrictions.  Beyond that, a lot may depend on the political calculus and on exactly what regulatory restriction is at issue.

My preferred framing of the issues is in terms of the energy transition, emphasizing that clean energy is more economical, better for public health, and better for the planet.  That doesn’t mean, however, that we should give up on discouraging the use of dirty energy sources. We just can’t afford to leave them in place indefinitely. As with most thing, the tricky part is finding the right balance.

There are plenty of reasons why reasonable people might dissent from some of these conclusions.  They might even be right.  The important thing is that these are the issues we should be discussing, rather than the abstract issue of whether fossil fuels are bad. They are bad, as a general matter, but the balance between politics and policy may be very much dependent on context.

affordability, coal, coal experts, energy politics, environmental politics, fossil fuels, natural gas, natural gas exports, Oil, oil experts, pipelines, Transportation