IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v53y2013icp442-453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Jenner, Steffen
  • Lamadrid, Alberto J.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the major environmental impacts of shale gas, conventional gas and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. These factors decisively affect the quality of life (public health and safety) as well as local and global environmental protection. Comparing various lifecycle assessments, this paper will suggest that a shift from coal to shale gas would benefit public health, the safety of workers, local environmental protection, water consumption, and the land surface. Most likely, shale gas also comes with a smaller GHG footprint than coal. However, shale gas extraction can affect water safety. This paper also discusses related aspects that exemplify how shale gas can be more beneficial in the short and long term. First, there are technical solutions readily available to fix the most crucial problems of shale gas extraction, such as methane leakages and other geo-hazards. Second, shale gas is best equipped to smoothen the transition to an age of renewable energy. Finally, this paper will recommend hybrid policy regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:53:y:2013:i:c:p:442-453
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512009755
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2011. "The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1243-1249, May.
    2. Paltsev, Sergey & Jacoby, Henry D. & Reilly, John M. & Ejaz, Qudsia J. & Morris, Jennifer & O'Sullivan, Francis & Rausch, Sebastian & Winchester, Niven & Kragha, Oghenerume, 2011. "The future of U.S. natural gas production, use, and trade," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5309-5321, September.
    3. Ian W.H. Parry & Antonio M. Bento, 2002. "Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the "Double Dividend" Hypothesis," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 22, pages 397-426, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Dannenberg, Astrid & Mennel, Tim & Moslener, Ulf, 2008. "What does Europe pay for clean energy?--Review of macroeconomic simulation studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1318-1330, April.
    5. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    6. Yin, Haitao & Powers, Nicholas, 2010. "Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generation[glottal stop]," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1140-1149, February.
    7. Wang, Jinsheng & Ryan, David & Anthony, Edward J., 2011. "Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 8196-8199.
    8. Tom Wigley, 2011. "Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 601-608, October.
    9. Pearce, David W, 1991. "The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 938-948, July.
    10. Gamper-Rabindran, Shanti, 2006. "Did the EPA's voluntary industrial toxics program reduce emissions? A GIS analysis of distributional impacts and by-media analysis of substitution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 391-410, July.
    11. Howard Rogers, 2011. "Shale gas--the unfolding story," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 27(1), pages 117-143, Spring.
    12. Fthenakis, Vasilis & Kim, Hyung Chul, 2009. "Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1465-1474, August.
    13. Rahm, Dianne, 2011. "Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2974-2981, May.
    14. Barker, Terry & Junankar, Sudhir & Pollitt, Hector & Summerton, Philip, 2007. "Carbon leakage from unilateral Environmental Tax Reforms in Europe, 1995-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6281-6292, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi & Jha, Awadhesh N. & Rogers, Howard, 2014. "Natural gas from shale formation – The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-28.
    2. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Lutz, Christian & Meyer, Bernd, 2009. "Environmental and economic effects of post-Kyoto carbon regimes: Results of simulations with the global model GINFORS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1758-1766, May.
    4. Iain Fraser & Robert Waschik, 2010. "The Double Dividend Hypothesis in a CGE Model: Specific Factors and Variable Labour Supply," Working Papers 2010.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    5. Holahan, Robert & Arnold, Gwen, 2013. "An institutional theory of hydraulic fracturing policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 127-134.
    6. Jacobs, Bas & de Mooij, Ruud A., 2015. "Pigou meets Mirrlees: On the irrelevance of tax distortions for the second-best Pigouvian tax," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 90-108.
    7. Chi Kong Chyong and David M. Reiner, 2015. "Economics and Politics of Shale Gas in Europe," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    8. Johnson, Corey & Boersma, Tim, 2013. "Energy (in)security in Poland the case of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 389-399.
    9. Sara Sousa, 2021. "Environmental Taxation in Portugal: A Contribution to Sustainability," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Sofia Vale (ed.), Eurasian Economic Perspectives, pages 369-382, Springer.
    10. Weber, Thomas A. & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2010. "Carbon markets and technological innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 115-132, September.
    11. Roberton C. Williams III, 2016. "Environmental Taxation," NBER Working Papers 22303, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Aldy, Joseph E. & Ley, Eduardo & Parry, Ian, 2008. "A Tax–Based Approach to Slowing Global Climate Change," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 61(3), pages 493-517, September.
    13. Frédéric Ghersi & Jean-Charles Hourcade & Philippe Quirion, 2001. "Marché international du carbone et double dividende : antinomie ou synergie," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 16(2), pages 149-177.
    14. Takeda, Shiro, 2007. "The double dividend from carbon regulations in Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 336-364, September.
    15. Makena Coffman & Paul Bernstein & Sherilyn Wee & Clarice Schafer, 2014. "An Economic and GHG Analysis of LNG in Hawaii," Working Papers 2014-10, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    16. Christian Lutz, 2010. "How to increase global resource productivity? Findings from modelling in the petrE project," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 343-356, August.
    17. Galindo, Luis Miguel & Beltrán, Allan & Ferrer, Jimy & Alatorre, José Eduardo, 2017. "Efectos potenciales de un impuesto al carbono sobre el producto interno bruto en los países de América Latina: estimaciones preliminares e hipotéticas a partir de un metaanálisis y una función de tran," Documentos de Proyectos 41867, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    18. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.
    19. Clive L. Spash & Alex Y. Lo, 2012. "Australia's Carbon Tax: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 23(1), pages 67-85, February.
    20. Munasib, Abdul & Rickman, Dan S., 2015. "Regional economic impacts of the shale gas and tight oil boom: A synthetic control analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-17.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:53:y:2013:i:c:p:442-453. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.