espite growing concerns about the negative impacts of natural gas, its production and consumption experienced a steep growth until the start of the COVID-19 pandemic 1 . Consequently, CO 2 emissions related to natural gas grew by 2.6% per year between 2009 and 2018 2 . Continuing investments in the natural gas infrastructure were justified by promoting them as beneficial for the transition to renewable energy sources and by presenting natural gas as a climate-friendly alternative to coal and oil [3][4][5] . Globally, a massive expansion of natural gas infrastructure is underway: almost 500 GW of natural gas-fired power plants are planned or under construction 6 . Meanwhile, new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals with a capacity of 635 million tonnes of natural gas per year 7 as well as LNG export terminals with a capacity of 700 million tonnes per year are under development 7 . These figures are likely to increase in the future, as a new geopolitical order has been created after Russia entered war with Ukraine. The European Union is now going to great lengths to become independent of Russian gas supplies, which still accounted for more than 40% of the total gas imports to the European Union by February 2022. Germany is responding to this new situation with a draft law that approves up to 11 LNG terminals (seven offshore and four onshore units) under accelerated permitting procedures; these terminals can import fossil natural gas until 2043 8 . Although these expansion plans will create new material realities, political and scientific controversy is growing as to whether the use of natural gas and the related infrastructure should be expanded. In light of climate protection goals, and the fact that natural gas itself is one of the biggest causes of climate change, questions now arise as to whether a rapid decline in natural gas use might be necessary, instead of expansion.In this Perspective, we argue why the expansion of natural gas infrastructure hinders a renewable energy future and why the natural gas 'bridge' narrative is misleading. Our aim is to stimulate critical discussion by challenging commonly held assumptions on natural gas. We highlight that the climate impact of natural gas has previously been underestimated and that new insights about this are not sufficiently incorporated into energy analyses. At the same time, the bridge narrative is problematic. Meanwhile, investments in natural gas make it harder to achieve climate targets due to lock-ins, and carry high economic risks. Based on these arguments, we put forth five recommendations to stimulate debate on the role of natural gas in decarbonization processes.
For climate change mitigation, a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels such as coal is necessary. This has far-reaching gender-specific consequences. This paper presents a systematic map of the literature that examines the impact of historical coal phase-out processes on women and their role in these processes. The search process consisted of screening over 3100 abstracts and reading 247 full-text studies. The analysis of the 73 publications ultimately included in the systematic map shows that past coal phase-outs meant both opportunities (e.g., increased labour market participation) as well as burdens for women (e.g., double burden of job and household). It becomes clear that agency within coal transitions was also gendered. For example, it was difficult for women to gain access to union structures, which led them to organise themselves into grassroots movements. Our research shows that policies aiming for a just sustainability transition should always be explicitly gender-responsive. However, the impact of sustainability transitions on women’s lives remains largely under-researched. Therefore, we propose a research agenda based on our findings containing six key issues that need to be addressed scientifically.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.