Controversially, exported gas emits far more greenhouse gases than coal, even though the fossil fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative. A major new research paper challenges the rapid expansion of gas exports to Europe and Asia.
Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel when burned for energy. Oil and gas producers have long promoted cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate change solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals. . , mainly in the United States.
However, the study itself has been embroiled in political debate in the US, concluding that LNG is 33% worse than coal in terms of global warming emissions over 20 years.
“The idea that coal is bad for the climate is false; LNG emits more greenhouse gases than other fuels,” says Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. he said.
“It is simply wrong to think that we should transport this gas as a solution to climate change. It is greenwashing by oil and gas companies that vastly underestimates emissions from this type of energy. is.”
Because so much energy is used to drill, move, cool, and transport gas from one country to another, the gas that actually ends up being burned in people’s homes and businesses accounts for less of the total emissions from this process. The study found that it only accounts for about one-third of the total amount.
The paper said the resulting high emissions meant there was “no need for LNG as an interim energy source” and that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority. ” he adds.
A peer-reviewed study published Thursday in the journal Energy Science and Engineering questions the rationale for a significant increase in LNG facilities along the U.S. Gulf Coast to send gas to overseas markets in giant tankers. are. The United States is the world’s largest LNG exporter, followed by Australia and Qatar.
According to government and industry estimates, LNG is assumed to have significantly lower emissions than coal, and there is hope that it could replace LNG in countries such as China, as well as the threat of an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major gas producer. There is also hope that it may be able to assist European allies exposed to
“U.S. LNG exports will help accelerate environmental progress around the world, helping countries reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” said Dustin Meyer, director of market development at the American Petroleum Institute. “This will enable a transition to cleaner natural gas.”
But scientists have determined that LNG expansion is incompatible with a world avoiding dangerous global warming, and in recent years, researchers have begun to investigate the use of methane, the gas’s main component and a powerful global warming agent. It has been discovered that the amount of leakage from drilling operations is much higher than officially announced figures. Estimated value.
Howarth’s paper found that as much as 3.5% of the gas delivered to customers escapes into the atmosphere without being combusted, far more than previously assumed. Methane is about 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, even though it exists in the atmosphere for only a short time, and scientists believe that increasing global methane emissions are due to the agreed climate change. It warns that there is a risk of blowing up the target.
The most important story on earth. Get all of this week’s environmental news – the good, the bad and the important.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
Howarth’s research shows that during LNG production, about half of the total emissions occur during the long journey where gas is first drilled and then pushed to a coastal terminal, usually by hydraulic fracturing or hydraulic fracturing. Huge shale deposits in the United States.
The energy used for this and the leakage cause pollution, which gets worse when the gas reaches the export facility. There, it is supercooled to -162 degrees Celsius (-260 degrees Fahrenheit), turning it into a liquid, and being loaded into giant storage vessels on tankers. Tankers then travel long distances to deliver the product to the customer’s country, where it is converted back into gas and then combusted.
“This whole process uses much more energy than coal,” Howarth says. “The science is pretty clear here. It’s wishful thinking that gas will miraculously move overseas without any emissions.”
Howarth’s paper sparked a firestorm before publication, with draft research highlighted by climate change activists such as Bill McKibben and a factor in the Biden administration’s decision to suspend all new export licenses earlier this year. It is reported that. For LNG projects.
The moratorium has infuriated the oil and gas industry, sparking lawsuits and some of its political allies. Last month, four Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy asking for an action with the agency over Howarth’s “flawed” and “false” research.
Gas advocacy groups also say the paper exaggerates emissions from LNG, a position echoed by some energy experts. “That’s a tough pill to swallow,” said David Dismukes, a leading energy consultant and researcher in Louisiana. “Does gas affect the climate? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.”
Howarth said the result of this unusual scrutiny was “more peer review than we’ve ever had before”, with five peer reviews conducted by eight other scientists. “I don’t think that criticism is justified at all. It feels like a political job,” Howarth said.
Howarth said the US faced “big choices” in the presidential election, with Donald Trump vowing on his first day back in the White House to reverse Biden’s moratorium on permitting a number of new LNG projects. said. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris backed away from her previous plan to ban fracking, but promised action on the climate crisis.
More than 125 climate, environmental and health scientists sent a letter to the Biden administration last month defending Howarth’s research and urging the continuation of the moratorium on LNG exports.
Duke University climate scientist Drew Schindel, who was not involved in the study, said the Howarth paper’s findings are “plausible.”
“Bob’s research adds to a growing body of literature showing that the gas industry debate is being undermined by the option of transitioning to renewable energy,” Schindel said. “However, the point of the debate should not be about whether gas is marginally better or worse than coal. It should be about how awful both are and that we need to get rid of both. .”
