In our discussion of the use of global warming potential (GWP) values in the Howarth et al (2011) paper, our text implies that the GISS group's 2009 and 2010 papers (Shindell et al 2009 andUnger et al 2010) were contradictory. Such an interpretation does not reflect the conclusions of those papers and was not our intention. First, the 2009 and 2010 papers address GWP and radiative forcing, respectively. Our intentions in that paragraph were (a) to illustrate the possible ways that the GWP and radiative forcing discussions in the scientific community were misapplied to lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from unconventional gas extraction, and (b) to underscore that the reasonable questions about GWP raised by Shindell et al (2009) are a justification for retaining a broader, rather than narrower, range of GWP possibilities for this calculation.
In our discussion of the use of global warming potential (GWP) values in the Howarth et al (2011) paper, our text implies that the GISS group's 2009 and 2010 papers (Shindell et al 2009 andUnger et al 2010) were contradictory. Such an interpretation does not reflect the conclusions of those papers and was not our intention. First, the 2009 and 2010 papers address GWP and radiative forcing, respectively. Our intentions in that paragraph were (a) to illustrate the possible ways that the GWP and radiative forcing discussions in the scientific community were misapplied to lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from unconventional gas extraction, and (b) to underscore that the reasonable questions about GWP raised by Shindell et al (2009) are a justification for retaining a broader, rather than narrower, range of GWP possibilities for this calculation.
AbstractNew techniques to extract natural gas from unconventional resources have become economically competitive over the past several years, leading to a rapid and largely unanticipated expansion in natural gas production. The US Energy Information Administration projects that unconventional gas will supply nearly half of US gas production by 2035. In addition, by significantly expanding and diversifying the gas supply internationally, the exploitation of new unconventional gas resources has the potential to reshape energy policy at national and international levels-altering geopolitics and energy security, recasting the economics of energy technology investment decisions, and shifting trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In anticipation of this expansion, one of the perceived core advantages of unconventional gas-its relatively moderate GHG impact compared to coal-has recently come under scrutiny. In this paper, we compare the GHG footprints of conventional natural gas, unconventional natural gas (i.e. shale gas that has been produced using the process of hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'), and coal in a transparent and consistent way, focusing primarily on the electricity generation sector. We show that for electricity generation the GHG impacts of shale gas are 11% higher than those of conventional gas, and only 56% that of coal for standard assumptions.
After substantial global investments into biofuel production from 2005 to 2008, challenges to a sustainable and robust biofuel industry have become more apparent than many proponents have anticipated. Across country and development contexts, conflicts arose as plans to scale up production clashed with local preferences or national policies, and Southern Africa has been no exception. This article analyzes recent difficulties with biofuels projects in Tanzania before the background of the more successful experiences of Brazil and South Africa. We identify areas of incompatibility between local expectations, government policy, and investor incentives. An assessment of different biofuels business models shows that some-such as contract farmingmay not be appropriate for Tanzania's situation and that policies are necessary that can address the needs of both local and regional stakeholders and provide adequate incentives for investors to pursue sustainable biofuels production.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.