Advertisement

Energy Transitions: Linking Energy and Climate Change

  • John H. PerkinsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Climate change and energy are clearly linked because of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from production and combustion of fossil fuels. Educational programs on climate change, however, have not developed robust curricula to help students see both the challenges and requirements for mitigating climate change, which requires a transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy used efficiently. A case review of disputes about exploratory hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas in Lancashire, UK, illustrates key points relevant to climate change, its mitigation, and energy transition. These points can be organized in a theoretical framework—political ecology—to construct chains of explanation that clarify issues underlying mitigation/transition pathways. Three lines of inquiry specify key issues: (a) the scale of energy challenges at national levels, (b) the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing primary energy sources, and (c) three budgets or constraints (Carbon, Energy, Investment). The framework and lines of inquiry identify key points for debates about mitigation and energy transitions. These findings derive from synthesis and analysis of scholarly literature, agency reports, and newspaper reports.

Keywords

Climate change Mitigation Energy transition Fracking Natural gas United Kingdom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’m deeply indebted to comments and critiques by David Blockstein, Cathy French, and Andy Jorgensen. Comments from anonymous reviewers were very helpful for revisions. I remain responsible, however, for all errors and garbled communications.

Origins and Support for this Work

Portions of the material included in this paper originated from work leading to several publications since 2010, including the book, Changing Energy: The Transition to a Sustainable Future (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017). Almost without exception, the work has been self-financed by the author, who claims no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arrhenius S (1896) On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philos Mag J Sci 41:237–276. Series 5Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed M, Rezaei-Gomari S (2019) Economic feasibility analysis of shale gas extraction from UK’s Carboniferous Bowland-Hodder Shale Unit. Resources 8(5).  https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8010005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews IJ (2013) The carboniferous Bowland shale gas study: geology and resource estimation. Br Geol Surv, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Blockstein DE (2019) Personal communication. 26 JanGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourgoyne AT Jr, Millheim KK, Chenevert ME, Young FS Jr (1986) Applied drilling engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
  6. BP (2018) BP statistical review of world energy 2018. BP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnot S (1899) Reflections on the motive power of fire. In: Magie WF (ed) The second law of thermodynamics: memoirs by Carnot, Clausius, and Thomson. Harper and Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Committee on Climate Change (2016) Onshore petroleum: the compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the uk’s carbon budgets. Committee on Climate Change, London. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/
  9. Coopersmith J (2010) Energy, the subtle concept: the discovery of feynman’s blocks from Leibniz to Einstein. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng YY, Haigh M, Pouwels W et al (2015) Quantifying a realistic, worldwide wind and solar electricity supply. Glob Environ Change 31:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2018) Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics 2018. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2019) Historical gas data: production and consumption and fuel input 1920–2017. Found at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-gas-data-gas-production-and-consumption-and-fuel-input. 9 Jan
  13. Elliott EG (2018) A community-based evaluation of proximity to unconventional oil and gas wells, drinking water contaminants, and health symptoms in Ohio. Environ Res 167:550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen J et al (2013) Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PLoS ONE 8(12):e81648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson JA, Duggan-Haas D (2014) Drilling into controversy: the educational complexity of shale gas development. J Environ Stud Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0161-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Energy Agency (2018) World energy investment, 2018. International Energy Agency, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Renewable Energy Agency (2017) Electricity storage and renewables: costs and markets to 2030. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu DhabiGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC. (1990). Climate change: the IPCC response strategies. IPCC, Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/. Accessed 11 Feb 2019
  19. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014, synthesis report. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Jevons WS (1866) The coal question: an inquiry concerning the progress of the nation and the probable exhaustion of our coal mines, 2nd edn. Macmillan and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Quéré C et al (2016) Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst Sci Data 8:605–649.  https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luzadis VA, Hirsch PD, Huang X (2018) Energy programs in higher education in the United States: assessing trends across two pathways to knowledge development. National Council for Science and the Environment, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35(2008):L04705.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGlade C, Speirs J, Sorrell S (2013) Methods of estimating shale gas—comparisons, evaluation, and implications. Energy 59:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller GT, Spoolman SE (2019) Environmental science, 16th edn. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. National Science Teachers Association (2019) About the next generation science standards. National Science Teachers Association, Arlington. https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx
  27. Next Generation Science Standards (2019) Developing the standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/developing-standards/developing-standards
  28. Office of Oil and Gas (2019) What it looks like. Found at http://www.ukoog.org.uk/community/what-it-looks-like
  29. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2013) UK shale gas potential. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Peng D, Poudineh R (2015) A holistic framework for the study of interdependence between electricity and gas sectors. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perkins JH (2017) Changing energy: the transition to a sustainable future. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  32. Robbins P (2012) Political ecology: a critical introduction, 2nd edn. Wiley, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  33. Skea J (2018) The United Kingdom: to develop or not to develop? In: Gamper-Rabindran Shanti (ed) The shale dilemma. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith C (1998) The science of energy: a cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith MB, Montgomery CT (2015) Hydraulic fracturing. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Guardian (2018) Anger and blockades as fracking starts in UK for first time since 2011. Found at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/fracking-protest6ers-blockade-cuadrilla-site-where-uk-work-due-to-restart
  37. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) International energy outlook 2017. US Energy Information Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2018a) Monthly energy review May 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2018b) Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2019) Frequently asked questions: how much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? Found at https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11. 28 Jan
  41. Vayda AP, Walters BB (1999) Against political ecology. Hum Ecol 27(1):167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Veatch RW, King GE, Holditch SA (2017) Essentials of hydraulic fracturing: vertical and horizontal wellbores. PennWell Corp, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  43. Weart SR (2003) The discovery of global warming. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. World Bank (2019a) GDP (current US$). Found at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD. 28 Jan
  45. World Bank (2019b) Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP). Found at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.FTOT.ZS?end=2017&start=1960&view=chart. 28 Jan
  46. Wrigley EA (2010) Energy and the english industrial revolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright GF (1898) Agassiz and the ice age. Am Nat 32:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Member of the Faculty EmeritusThe Evergreen State CollegeKensingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations