All out of Love: The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Other Green Groups Withdraw Support for Natural Gas

Article excerpt

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Until a few years ago, most national environmental organizations endorsed natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to renewable energy, arguing that it was cleaner than oil and coal. Now many of these groups are taking a second look, though few are ready to endorse an all-out ban on fracking.

In August the board of the Sierra Club (sierraclub.org) approved an update to its energy resources policy which says, in part, "The production, transport and burning of natural gas remains a significant source of CO2 and methane. The Sierra Club's goal is to develop and use as little natural gas as possible and to wean ourselves from most fossil fuels, including natural gas, as swiftly as possible and by no later than 2050. Our strong preference is to replace existing nuclear and coal plants with clean renewable energy whenever possible, not natural gas."

This past summer, the Sierra Club set up a hydrofracking task force to study how this technology---especially horizontal fracking in shale formations--impacts the environment and local communities. Bruce Hamilton, deputy executive director of the Sierra Club says their organization is supporting local moratoria until safeguards are put in place. "Similarly, where there are areas where any kind of gas development would be inappropriate, we have proposed that it be banned from those specific areas, like New York City and Pittsburgh. We have not supported bans for large geographic areas like the state of New York or the United States."

Hamilton says the Atlantic chapter, which covers New York State, would like to support a state-wide ban, but the Club hasn't acted on it yet. "It's hard because New York State uses a lot of gas and doesn't produce hardly any--yet. To say we're going to ban natural gas but at the same time we're going to continue to import it creates a policy dilemma for the Club because it's basically saying as long as the impacts are in Texas or the Mideast, it's fine, we just don't want them in our back yard."

None of which means that he, or the Sierra Club, consider natural gas a "clean" source of energy. "It's a fossil fuel, it's dirty, it's leading to major contamination of the planet, both from a global warming standpoint and an ecosystem impact standpoint," Hamilton says. "At one point when people thought natural gas was twice as clean as coal from a greenhouse gas emission standpoint, many environmental groups suggested natural gas was a good alternative and what we used to call a 'transition' or 'bridge' fuel. …