theguardian.com
Yara's 'Sustainable' Ammonia Plant Uses Fracked Gas, Undermining Green Claims
Yara and BASF's Texas ammonia plant, advertised as 'sustainable', uses hydrogen derived from US shale gas, sending this fertilizer to Europe and undermining efforts for 'clean' production; experts say claims of gas-free production are false.
- How does the Yara Freeport ammonia plant's reliance on shale gas impact global efforts to reduce fertilizer emissions?
- Yara and BASF's Texas ammonia plant, touted as sustainable, uses hydrogen from US shale gas, contradicting claims of gas-free production. This ammonia is shipped to Europe, undermining efforts to create 'clean' fertilizer.
- What are the specific environmental and social consequences of using shale gas-derived hydrogen in ammonia production?
- The plant's hydrogen comes from a nearby Dow facility, which replaces the lost heat energy by burning additional fracked gas. Though the process is more efficient, it increases overall fossil fuel use and negates the claimed sustainability.
- What policy changes are needed to address the underlying issues of fertiliser overuse, pollution, and emissions, rather than just focusing on green technologies?
- The reliance on fracked gas highlights the offshoring of pollution and environmental costs. This practice exposes the gap between green marketing and actual environmental impact, particularly concerning the booming fertilizer demand.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Yara's actions negatively, emphasizing the environmental damage caused by the Freeport plant and highlighting the discrepancies between its public claims and its actual practices. The headline and introduction immediately establish a critical tone. The repeated mention of "green promises" and "fracked gas" throughout the article further reinforces this negative framing. While it includes Yara's statement defending its practices, the framing throughout the article strongly suggests a lack of transparency and environmental responsibility on Yara's part.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language, such as "sprawling petrochemical complex", "most polluting", "environmentally and socially damaging", and "bitter truth", to create a negative impression of Yara's operations. The repeated use of "fracked gas" carries a strongly negative connotation. Neutral alternatives could include phrases such as "large industrial facility", "significant emitter", "fossil fuel-based", and "natural gas extracted using hydraulic fracturing". The repeated use of "green promises" in contrast to the reality creates a strong negative implication.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the environmental impact of Yara's Freeport plant and its reliance on shale gas, but it omits discussion of the economic benefits of the plant for the local community in Freeport, Texas. It also doesn't explore in detail the potential economic consequences of transitioning away from fossil fuel-based ammonia production. The article mentions the overall fertilizer market size but lacks detail on the market share held by Yara or the relative impact of its Freeport plant on the global market. Finally, while it touches on efforts to reduce fertilizer emissions in Europe, it doesn't delve into the specific policies or challenges involved in those efforts.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between 'clean' and 'dirty' ammonia production. It overlooks the complexities of transitioning to sustainable energy sources, the economic considerations involved, and the potential for incremental improvements in ammonia production processes. The narrative simplifies a complex problem by focusing on the contrast between Yara's claims and the reality of its reliance on shale gas, ignoring the various nuances of the situation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Yara Freeport plant, despite claims of sustainable production, relies on hydrogen from US shale gas, a highly polluting fossil fuel. This contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, undermining efforts to mitigate climate change. The plant's ammonia is then exported to Europe, further exacerbating the global carbon footprint. The article highlights the discrepancy between the company's claims of sustainability and its actual practices, emphasizing the negative impact on climate action.