(2020) have found, arguments emphasizing shale gas' potential contributions to the transition to a low-carbon future have played a prominent role in mobilizing popular support for shale gas development. As recent studies such as Bomberg (2017) and Delborne et al.
The problematic aspects of bridge fuel identified by previous research is truly alarming, yet media coverage often undermines such warnings. 18), not mentioning issues such as methane leakage and the difficulty of closing down newly built gas infrastructure. Likewise, a recent report from Oil Change International ( Stockman et al., 2019) argued that “the myth of gas as a ‘bridge’ to a stable climate does not stand up to scrutiny the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions just from burning the gas itself are enough to overshoot climate goals” (p. (2012) reviewed existing empirical findings on the climate impacts of shale gas and reached the conclusion that it is highly problematic to consider shale gas as clean energy since factors impacting its lifecycle emissions are “poorly characterized and remain contested in the academic literature” (p. Focusing on the case of BC LNG, Stephenson et al. Such critiques tend to focus on the bridge fuel concept's inherent ambiguity and its advocacy for a slow phase out of hydrocarbon in the global energy system. 1), which would allow the province to become a global leader in building a low carbon economy.ĭespite aggressive propaganda efforts like Coleman's, the branding of natural gas as a “bridge” or “transition” fuel has been widely criticized within scholarly discussions. In Canada's westernmost province British Columbia (BC), for instance, the provincial government has justified its pursuit of establishing an export-oriented liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry by consistently referring shale gas produced via hydraulic fracturing as the world's “cleanest-burning fossil fuel.” In the words of Rich Coleman-former BC Minister of Energy and Mines, exporting BC LNG could “significantly lower global greenhouse gas production by replacing coal-fired power plants and oil-based transportation fuels with a much cleaner alternative” ( BC Ministry of Energy Mines, 2012, p. This optimistic outlook was immediately picked up by fossil fuel proponents from both government and industry, who began to frequently frame the extraction of shale gas as a climate solution. In June 2011, the organization published a widely circulated special report titled “Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas?” ( The International Energy Agency, 2011), claiming that if following best practices, expanding gas production and consumption could “lead to lower emissions of greenhouse gases and local pollutants, and help to diversify energy supply and improve energy security” (p.
Take the International Energy Agency (IEA) as an example. A key metaphorical expression emerging from such promotional efforts is the proposal of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” that facilitates the transition to low-carbon and eventually renewable energy systems ( Healey and Jaccard, 2016 Ogden et al., 2018). In both the United States and Canada, the “shale gas boom” since the late 2000's has provoked concerted government and industry propaganda promoting the construction of new gas infrastructure. Given this situation, the paper ends by calling for more knowledge mobilization efforts to raise public awareness of the controversial factors underlying expanding unconventional gas production and consumption.
Overall, the fact that bridge fuel references only appeared in a fraction of Canadian environmental and energy news reports during the target period suggests the issue's peripheral status in the Canadian media sphere. Meanwhile, there are three less common, yet noteworthy interpretations arising out of the rest of the articles, which conflict with each other in terms of their views on the relationship between unconventional gas and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The data in question consist of 99 articles published by Canadian media sources, all of which included explicit references to either “bridge fuel” or “transition fuel.” Through a qualitative thematic analysis, I found that more than half of the articles adopted the conventional definition of bridge fuel. It also explicates different stakeholders' varying stances on the environmental impacts of North America's ongoing “shale gas boom,” as manifested in their conflicting attitudes toward designating unconventional gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future. This paper examines how Canadian media have discussed the role of natural gas in climate change mitigation from 2016 to 2019.
#ABRIDGE DEFINTION PROFESSIONAL#
School of Professional Communication, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
0 kommentar(er)
