In recent years, the proposal to use fossil gas in Costa Rica as a transitional energy fuel has emerged, arguing that it is less polluting than oil and, therefore, should be our “bridge fuel.” However, this idea is based on misconceptions that do not reflect the advances in research on the environmental impacts of this hydrocarbon.
It is true that fossil gas, when burned, emits less carbon dioxide (CO2) compared to oil. At first glance, this might seem like an advantageous feature. However, fossil gas also releases methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) with a global warming potential approximately 84 times greater than CO2 over a 20-year horizon. Therefore, far from being a clean or sustainable option, decisions in favor of natural gas accelerate the climate crisis.
Of course, there are other industries that also produce methane, such as livestock farming or even hydroelectric plants due to the decomposition of organic matter, but the discussion we should be having is how to reduce methane production in those industries, not how to incentivize the creation of new sources of methane.
Many known uses
Fossil gas is currently used in various countries for electricity production, heating, cooling, cooking, industrial processes, and, to a lesser extent, in vehicles as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), not Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) which is what is known in Costa Rica.
For many of these nations, opting for fossil gas was a valid decision at the time, as they previously produced electricity based on coal, a much more polluting option.
By betting decades ago on the transition from coal to fossil gas, these countries developed a robust infrastructure for the production and distribution of this hydrocarbon. However, this infrastructure will gradually be relegated, as those same territories are making efforts to transition to renewable energies.
Costa Rica, for its part, has achieved a predominantly renewable electricity generation for almost a decade. From this solid foundation, the country can aspire to more ambitious goals, enhancing the use of solar and wind energy, and exploring the use of storage, biomass, or green hydrogen.
Developing infrastructure to exploit, produce, and distribute fossil gas in Costa Rica would be an unnecessary setback. It makes no sense at all to build gas pipelines, reservoirs, and other facilities for a non-existent market in our country, and whose demand is also projected to decrease globally by 2050, thereby creating a significant risk of stranded assets for the country.
Panama has made a significant investment to position itself as a strong supplier of fossil gas in the region. Its new infrastructure facilitates the storage and transportation of this hydrocarbon to ports. This situation impacts Costa Rica in two ways: first, it highlights a superior competitor by location (Panama Canal) and with already installed capacities; second, it allows the few companies that may currently need fossil gas in our country (such as metal or glass producers) to import it from the neighboring nation.
The truth is that gasifying the country is carbonizing the country and regressing in our image as a leading nation in sustainable growth. It is wasting the renewable resource, which is abundant in our land, and ignoring the natural step that humanity should be taking, not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it will generate greater returns for Costa Rica.
Just one piece of data as an example: when comparing renewable energy scenarios to natural gas, according to the United Nations, the number of jobs generated by the deployment of renewable energy is 98 times higher in the short term and 82 times higher by 2050.
Generating electricity from clean and renewable sources
It is evident that any energy proposal for Costa Rica must be focused on expanding our capacity to generate electricity from clean and renewable sources, as well as on the efficient use and utilization of the electricity we produce, directly investing in the technologies of the future, knowing that the return on investment is assured and that the social and environmental impact of the investment is much greater.
