As the global climate crisis intensifies while the production of gas soars, it is clearer than ever that gas must be phased out together with coal and oil. In contrast to industry claims that gas can be a bridge fuel in the clean energy transition, our analysis consistently shows that gas is NOT clean, cheap, or necessary.
Below are a collection of resources on gas that include reports, blogs, and action opportunities.
WHY WE WORK ON GAS
Since 2000, global gas production has grown over 50%. The expansion of fracking in the United States has played a leading role in this growth, with U.S. production growing over 60%. The U.S. fracked gas boom has left a trail of destruction in its wake, with pipelines, compressor stations, storage terminals, LNG export terminals, and sand mining pits adding to the thousands of wells that scar the landscape, and threaten communities and climate.
With global gas production estimated to grow a further 20 to 40 percent within the next two decades, the fossil fuel industry pedals a myth that somehow this massive expansion of fossil gas and associated infrastructure is helping to solve the climate crisis. We work to debunk this “bridge fuel” myth with our analysis, reporting, and advocacy.
GAS REPORTS & ANALYSIS
Asia is one of the few remaining growth markets for gas. The fossil fuel industry and its proponents are pushing to develop $379 billion of gas terminals, pipelines and power plants in Asia over the next decade. This aggressive buildout ignores a simple truth. Renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper.
This impending buildout of new gas infrastructure poses one of the greatest threats to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. Instead of forming a bridge — as gas proponents claim — gas expansion builds a wall against the clean energy future we need.
This report makes the case that gas is not a ‘bridge fuel’ to a safe climate. As the global climate crisis intensifies and gas production and consumption soars, it is clearer than ever that gas is not a climate solution.
At precisely the time in which the world must begin rapidly decarbonizing to avoid runaway climate disaster, the United States is moving further and faster than any other country to expand oil and gas extraction.
As the financial arm of the EU, the EIB has a mandate to act in the public interest. Despite this, the EIB continues to invest heavily in gas infrastructure.
Ireland is on course to miss both its short-term climate commitments within EU legislation. Expanded gas extraction will only make it more difficult to achieve these goals, and must be avoided in order to achieve a safe climate future.
This report focuses on fossil gas development in the G20 and debunking the myth of fossil gas as a clean transition fuel.
This report examines how a new wave of gas pipeline construction threatens to shunt serious risks and costs on to utility ratepayers.
This report scientifically grounds the growing movement to keep carbon in the ground by revealing the need to stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure and industry expansion.
This report shows that current projections for U.S. natural gas production – fueled by a boom in the Appalachian Basin – will lock in enough carbon to bust through agreed climate goals.
The ACP is facing a triple threat of challenges that combine to present serious obstacles for the project to reach completion. It would be prudent for investors to question whether pursuing the project further is a wise use of capital.
Diminishing consumer demand coupled with more affordable renewables are casting doubt on the overall feasibility and potential profitability of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
The proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal and Pacific Connector pipeline would be a substantial source of climate pollution for decades to come.
We find that the Rover Pipeline would lead to annual emissions of nearly 145 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
This analysis examines the banks that are in line to finance the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 301-mile, $3.5 billion fracked-gas project.
This analysis finds that the PennEast Pipeline would result in the emissions equivalent the 14 coal plants, or 10 million passenger vehicles.
This analysis finds that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would cause the emissions equivalent of 20 coal plants, or 14 million passenger vehicles.
This analysis finds that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would cause the emissions equivalent of 26 coal plants, or 19 million passenger vehicles.
We summarize the most significant financial and climate risks to building the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
LATEST GAS POSTS
For IEA scenario reform, the devil is in the details. The IEA must develop a 1.5°C scenario that is aligned with the goals of the Paris climate agreement and address the concerns of key WEO users. Anything less would be easy to discount as greenwashing or another example of the pro-fossil fuel bias at the IEA.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the world’s largest multilateral lender, bigger even than the World Bank. As a public bank, it’s tasked with providing finance in the EU public interest, and it has an outsized influence on the EU’s energy system because of the private investment it can “crowd in” and the sheer amount of money it has at its disposal.
A new analysis released today highlights how European Investment Bank (EIB) financing of fossil fuel projects – in particular gas pipelines and LNG terminals – is not compatible with EU climate commitments or the aims of the Paris Agreement.
There is no room for further financing of fossil gas or any other fossil fuel projects by the EIB. This briefing calls for the new Energy Lending Policy to reflect this reality. The EIB cannot claim to uphold its commitment to align its finance with the Paris Agreement if it continues to finance fossil gas projects.
When it comes to making decisions on expensive and complex energy infrastructure, investors, governments, and companies look decades into the future. Unfortunately for action on climate change, the IEA's World Energy Outlook has a strong status quo bias.
A new report debunks the myth that natural gas can be a bridge to a clean, affordable energy future and warns policymakers to “avoid picking gas as the winner” in the transition to clean energy.
Gas is dirty, expensive, and unnecessary - so why is the fossil fuel industry calling it a 'bridge fuel'? Our new report unpacks and debunks the enduring myth that gas can form a 'bridge' to a safe climate.
This report unpacks and debunks the enduring myth that gas can form a bridge to a decarbonized future. As the global crisis intensifies while the production and consumption of gas soars, it is clearer than ever that gas is not a solution to the climate crisis.