Quantifying habitat impacts of natural gas infrastructure to facilitate biodiversity offsetting

Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape

The global energy system has a relatively small land footprint at present, comprising just 0.4% of ice-free land. This pales in comparison to agricultural land use– 30–38% of ice-free land–yet future low-carbon energy systems that shift to more extensive technologies could dramatically alter landscapes around the globe. The challenge is more acute given the projected doubling of global energy consumption by 2050 and widespread electrification of transportation and industry. Yet unlike greenhouse gas emissions, land use intensity of energy has been rarely studied in a rigorous way. Here we calculate land-use intensity of energy (LUIE) for real-world sites across all major sources of electricity, integrating data from published literature, databases, and original data collection. We find a range of LUIE that span four orders of magnitude, from nuclear with 7.1 ha/TWh/y to dedicated biomass at 58,000 ha/TWh/y. By applying these LUIE results to the future electricity portfolios of ten energy scenarios, we conclude that land use could become a significant constraint on deep decarbonization of the power system, yet low-carbon, land-efficient options are available.

The Impact of Shale Oil and Gas Development on Rangelands in the Permian Basin Region: An Assessment Using High-Resolution Remote Sensing Data

The environmental impact of shale energy development is a growing concern in the US and worldwide. Although the topic is well-studied in general, shale development’s impact on drylands has received much less attention in the literature. This study focuses on the effect of shale development on land cover in the Permian Basin region—a unique arid/semi-arid landscape experiencing an unprecedented intensity of drilling and production activities. By taking advantage of the high-resolution remote sensing land cover data, we develop a fixed-effects panel (longitudinal) data regression model to control unobserved spatial heterogeneities and regionwide trends. The model allows us to understand the land cover’s dynamics over the past decade of shale development. The results show that shale development had moderate negative but statistically significant impacts on shrubland and grassland/pasture. The effect is more strongly associated with the hydrocarbon production volume and less with the number of oil and gas wells drilled. Between shrubland and grassland/pasture, the impact on shrubland is more pronounced in terms of magnitude. The dominance of shrubland in the region likely explains the result.

Disturbance affects biotic community composition at desert wind farms

Context The global benefits of increased renewable energy production may come at a cost to local biotic communities and even regional ecosystems. Wind energy developments, in particular, are known to cause bird and bat mortalities, and to fragment habitat for terrestrial vertebrates within developed project areas. Effects on species sensitive to wind turbines (and increased prevalence of species tolerant to this disturbance) might alter community-level patterns of occurrence, with potentially detrimental changes to wildlife habitat and ecosystem health. Aims The present study assessed whether wind energy developments produced downstream ecological costs. Specifically, community composition and diversity were compared between wind farms and nearby areas without energy development. Methods Traditional diversity measures and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) were used to map ecological dissimilarity across four wind farms and five reference (control) areas in Southern California, USA. Key results Wind farms had more noise and road disturbance than sites without turbine installations. Noise and disturbance were correlated with reduced plant richness, particularly for endemic plant species and, conversely, with increased non-native plant richness. Animal communities at wind farms were less diverse, with fewer species and lower evenness relative to reference areas with minor or no disturbances. Wind farms had fewer rare and unique species and, for some species of avian predators, encounter rates were lower at wind farms. Conclusions Renewable wind energy may indeed cause shifts in local communities. Although wind farms still supported many of the same species found in natural areas, suggesting that renewable wind energy facilities can provide useable habitat for some wildlife, these communities were also less rich and diverse. Implications Non-native species were more prevalent at wind farms, which may then facilitate further invasions into surrounding habitats. In addition, reduced overall plant and predator diversity at wind farms, and lower encounter rates for specific taxa (particular birds), may significantly affect community structure and function.

Quantifying the conservation gains from shared access to linear infrastructure

The proliferation of linear infrastructure such as roads and railways is a major global driver of cumulative biodiversity loss. One strategy for reducing habitat loss associated with development is to encourage linear infrastructure providers and users to share infrastructure networks. We quantified the reductions in biodiversity impact and capital costs under linear infrastructure sharing of a range of potential mine to port transportation links for 47 mine locations operated by 28 separate companies in the Upper Spencer Gulf Region of South Australia. We mapped transport links based on least-cost pathways for different levels of linear-infrastructure sharing and used expert-elicited impacts of linear infrastructure to estimate the consequences for biodiversity. Capital costs were calculated based on estimates of construction costs, compensation payments, and transaction costs. We evaluated proposed mine-port links by comparing biodiversity impacts and capital costs across 3 scenarios: an independent scenario, where no infrastructure is shared; a restricted-access scenario, where the largest mining companies share infrastructure but exclude smaller mining companies from sharing; and a shared scenario where all mining companies share linear infrastructure. Fully shared development of linear infrastructure reduced overall biodiversity impacts by 76% and reduced capital costs by 64% compared with the independent scenario. However, there was considerable variation among companies. Our restricted-access scenario showed only modest biodiversity benefits relative to the independent scenario, indicating that reductions are likely to be limited if the dominant mining companies restrict access to infrastructure, which often occurs without policies that promote sharing of infrastructure. Our research helps illuminate the circumstances under which infrastructure sharing can minimize the biodiversity impacts of development.

The costs of avoiding environmental impacts from shale-gas surface infrastructure

Growing energy demand has increased the need to manage conflicts between energy production and the environment. As an example, shale-gas extraction requires substantial surface infrastructure, which fragments habitats, erodes soils, degrades freshwater systems, and displaces rare species. Strategic planning of shale-gas infrastructure can reduce trade-offs between economic and environmental objectives, but the specific nature of these trade-offs is not known. We estimated the cost of avoiding impacts from land-use change on forests, wetlands, rare species, and streams from shale-energy development within leaseholds. We created software for optimally siting shale-gas surface infrastructure to minimize its environmental impacts at reasonable construction cost. We visually assessed sites before infrastructure optimization to test whether such inspection could be used to predict whether impacts could be avoided at the site. On average, up to 38% of aggregate environmental impacts of infrastructure could be avoided for 20% greater development costs by spatially optimizing infrastructure. However, we found trade-offs between environmental impacts and costs among sites. In visual inspections, we often distinguished between sites that could be developed to avoid impacts at relatively low cost (29%) and those that could not (20%). Reductions in a metric of aggregate environmental impact could be largely attributed to potential displacement of rare species, sedimentation, and forest fragmentation. Planners and regulators can estimate and use heterogeneous trade-offs among development sites to create industry-wide improvements in environmental performance and do so at reasonable costs by, for example, leveraging low-cost avoidance of impacts at some sites to offset others. This could require substantial effort, but the results and software we provide can facilitate the process.

Using offsets to mitigate environmental impacts of major projects: A stakeholder analysis

Global patterns of development suggest that as more projects are initiated, business will need to find acceptable measures to conserve biodiversity. The application of environmental offsets allows firms to combine their economic interests with the environment and society. This article presents the results of a multi-stakeholder analysis related to the design of offsets principles, policies, and regulatory processes, using a large infrastructure projects context. The results indicate that business was primarily interested in using direct offsets and other compensatory measures, known internationally as indirect offsets, to acquit their environmental management obligations. In contrast, the environmental sector argued that highly principled and scientifically robust offsets programs should be implemented and maintained for enduring environmental protection. Stakeholder consensus stressed the importance of offsets registers with commensurate monitoring and enforcement. Our findings provide instructive insights into the countervailing views of offsets policy stakeholders.

Review of the scientific evidence to support environmental risk assessment of shale gas development in the UK

Interest in the development of shale gas resources using hydraulic fracturing techniques is increasing worldwide despite concerns about the environmental risks associated with this activity. In the United Kingdom (UK), early attempts to hydraulically fracture a shale gas well resulted in a seismic event that led to the suspension of all hydraulic fracturing operations. In response to this occurrence, UK regulators have requested that future shale gas operations that use hydraulic fracturing should be accompanied by a high-level environmental risk assessment (ERA). Completion of an ERA can demonstrate competency, communicate understanding, and ultimately build trust that environmental risks are being managed properly, however, this assessment requires a scientific evidence base. In this paper we discuss how the ERA became a preferred assessment technique to understand the risks related to shale gas development in the UK, and how it can be used to communicate information between stakeholders. We also provide a review of the evidence base that describes the environmental risks related to shale gas operations, which could be used to support an ERA. Finally, we conclude with an update of the current environmental risks associated with shale gas development in the UK and present recommendations for further research.

The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial

The objectives of No Net Loss and Net Gain have emerged as key principles in conservation policy. Both give rise to mechanisms by which certain unavoidable biodiversity losses associated with development are quantified, and compensated with comparable gains (e.g. habitat restoration). The former seeks a neutral outcome for biodiversity after losses and gains are accounted for, and the latter seeks an improved outcome. Policy-makers often assume that the transition from one to the other is straightforward and essentially a question of the amount of compensation provided. Consequently, companies increasingly favour Net Gain type commitments, and financial institutions make lending conditional on either objective, depending on the habitat involved. We contend, however, that achieving Net Gain is fundamentally different to achieving No Net Loss, and moving from one to the other is less trivial than is widely realized. Our contention is based on four arguments: (1) the two principles represent different underlying conservation philosophies; (2) ecological uncertainties make it difficult to know where the threshold between No Net Loss and Net Gain lies; (3) different frames of reference are more or less appropriate in evaluating the ecological outcomes, depending on the principle chosen; and (4) stakeholder expectations differ considerably under the two principles. In exploring these arguments we hope to support policy-makers in choosing the more appropriate of the two objectives. We suggest that financial institutions should provide greater clarity regarding the explicit requirements for each principle. We conclude by highlighting questions of relevance to this topic that would benefit from focused research.

Considerations for the development of shale gas in the United Kingdom

The United States shale gas boom has precipitated global interest in the development of unconventional oil and gas resources. Recently, government ministers in the United Kingdom started granting licenses that will enable companies to begin initial exploration for shale gas. Meanwhile, concern is increasing among the scientific community about the potential impacts of shale gas and other types of unconventional natural gas development (UGD) on human health and the environment. Although significant data gaps remain, there has been a surge in the number of articles appearing in the scientific literature, nearly three-quarters of which has been published since the beginning of 2013. Important lessons can be drawn from the UGD experience in the United States. Here we explore these considerations and argue that shale gas development policies in the UK and elsewhere should be informed by empirical evidence generated on environmental, public health, and social risks. Additionally, policy decisions should take into account the measured effectiveness of harm reduction strategies as opposed to hypothetical scenarios and purported best practices that lack empirical support.