Adding to the continued blows against the activist narrative that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) is bad for the environment, a new study analyzing the lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) found that U.S. LNG exports are environmentally beneficial in comparison to alternative fuels.
The study, commissioned by Natural Allies for a Clean Energy Future (NACEF) and the Partnership to Address Global Emissions (PAGE), concludes that U.S. LNG exports are likely to have represented a net reduction in the world’s GHG emissions compared to the mix of alternative fuels that would have served as substitutes if LNG had not been available in 2022. These alternative fuels are assumed to be coal and oil.
Other key findings from the study demonstrate U.S. LNG’s vital role in limiting the world’s emissions and transitioning from coal. According to the study, under the base case assumptions, shifting from U.S. LNG to coal increases GHG emissions in 2022 by 47.7 percent to 85.9 percent. This conclusion stems from the report’s finding that energy from LNG exports would be replaced by 54 percent coal, 34 percent fuel oil, 16 percent domestic gas, and 8 percent renewable sources. In the absence of U.S. LNG in 2022, the study found that the total increase of global emissions would have been 112 million metric tons.
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Co-Chair of the Natural Allies Leadership Council, said of the study:
“U.S. LNG will continue to be an important pathway to drive down global greenhouse gas emissions across the globe…It’s my hope that my fellow Democrats in Washington move beyond bumper sticker slogans and begin to talk about the realities of how we can responsibly scale up renewables, drive down emissions quickly, and secure energy systems at home and abroad with affordable, reliable, and low-carbon natural gas.”
Similarly, Chris Treanor, Executive Director of PAGE emphasized:
“This study underscores the fact that natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and must remain a solution to achieving our climate and energy security goals.”
This is not the first study to provide evidence of the importance of LNG for energy security and helping achieve climate goals. Many studies, expert testimony, statistical analyses, and the Department of Energy’s own research demonstrate the economic and long-term environmental benefits of U.S. LNG.
Biden Admin Appealing Court Injunction
In spite of this clear and mounting evidence of LNG’s importance for lowering U.S. emissions and bolstering our economic and national security, the Biden administration continues to double down on its widely criticized LNG export pause.
On Monday, the Department of Justice appealed U.S. Judge James Cain’s decision that halted the DOE’s pause on issuing new LNG export permits. Jude Cain ruled last month that the pause was:
“Completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy.”
Political undertones exposed
Perhaps a reason the pause was “without reason or logic” was that it was inspired and motivated purely by politics. Billionaire donors and activists like the Rockefellers and Michael Bloomberg admitted to pushing the ban, while the lead academic behind the LNG lifecycle research influencing the ban is known “keep it in the ground” activist Dr. Robert Howarth.
In March, Howarth openly admitted that his research on LNG life cycle emissions was prematurely released with the ultimate goal of getting rid of natural gas entirely.
From Bloomberg:
“He decided to release his LNG study before it underwent peer review after a conversation with environmentalist and journalist Bill McKibben, who wrote about it in the New Yorker. According to Howarth, McKibben told him that if he waited to make results from his paper public until after the peer review process, which could take until spring or summer, that would mean missing the opportunity to impact US policy decisions on LNG expected in the first part of this year. ‘I thought, well, okay, he’s right,’ said Howarth.”
EID has already highlighted that Howarth quietly updated, then updated again, his study showing large fluctuations and errors in his work. Adding to this, the Breakthrough Institute released a recent analysis of Howarth’s study demonstrating critical flaws in its scientific methodology. Chief among these is Howarth’s methodology in conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the emissions intensity of LNG for overseas power production.
According to the Breakthrough Institute, Howarth’s LCA assesses emissions in terms of the thermal fuel energy generated as opposed to the electrical energy generated. This oversight means that his analysis does not capture statistics on the superior energy efficiency of natural gas power plants compared to coal-fired power plants, which was identified as one of the most significant variables in lowering emissions within the DOE’s 2019 National Energy Technology Laboratory report.
The study is “riddled with errors,” according to Breakthrough, and should no longer be considered legitimate science. Breakthrough pointed out the wide publicity Howarth’s study has received, and calls on the scientist to admit to his failure to follow best practices:
“Howarth has neglected to take accountability for his erroneous analysis, which was ubiquitously cited by journalists and even in congressional communiqué in favor of his preferred policy outcome. The forthcoming DOE report on the climate and economic impacts of U.S. LNG should heed to the best practices of the literature, as Howarth neglected to do, and consider realistic end-uses of U.S. LNG into their analysis.”
The choice to use thermal fuel energy over electrical energy consistently generated greenhouse gas emissions estimates much higher than most other LCAs of U.S. LNG in academic literature – and is likely the reason Howarth’s study is a favorite among environmental activists and their billionaire-donors with a preconceived and predetermined policy outcome.
Breakthrough closed its analysis by emphasizing that the Biden administration must not use this faulty data to dictate American energy policy:
“One thing is for sure, both the past and present iterations of Howarth’s LCA study constitute no basis upon which to make energy policy, and the Biden administration would do well to refer to higher-quality studies in the literature and experts at the DOE in developing a sound LNG export policy.” (emphasis added)
Bottom Line: The arrows keep coming for the Biden administration’s political and widely panned LNG ban: yet another study proves U.S. LNG’s critical role in lowering emissions across the globe, while the main paper defending the pause is being discredited as “riddled with errors.” Despite this, the Biden administration continues to use its regulatory power to restrict U.S. LNG growth – against the wishes of bipartisan members of Congress, the American people, and our allies.
The post LNG Pause: Biden Admin Fights for “Riddled with Errors” Pause, Against Lower Emissions appeared first on .
This post appeared first on Energy In Depth.
