In a recent interview with E&E News, Dr. Robert Howarth – the controversial “Keep It In the Ground” researcher whose study the Biden administration used to justify its LNG export pause – again promoted claims about natural gas, energy prices, and LNG that were anything but accurate.
Here’s a few things to keep in mind:
Breakthrough Institute Was Just the Most Recent Of Many Criticisms Since 2011
Howarth: “Well, the Breakthrough report was written by someone who has absolutely no experience or any prior work in this area. As far as I can tell, they’ve never done a life cycle assessment themselves. They’ve never worked on methane emissions. They’ve actually never worked on climate change. And to me, it’s as if you hired an aggressive undergraduate to pick holes in something. That’s what you can get when you hire amateurs, let me put it that way. You know, the Breakthrough Institute is known for its full-throated gas views. They’re known for being climate skeptics and climate deniers, and this report … kind of fits into their tradition. I felt it was best to just ignore it. It went through no peer review, and it wouldn’t possibly stand up to peer review. So I ignored it.”
To be clear, Breakthrough Institute provided a thorough debunk of Howarth’s research – and they didn’t just pull their criticisms out of the ether. It was built on years of scathing criticism of Howarth’s research that is the foundation for his LNG study that Howarth has also ignored. As Congressman August Pfluger (R-TX-11) wrote in a letter Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm:
“The review found that Mr. Howarth used incorrect data regarding the source of natural gas exported as LNG, leakage rates, and shipping distances, as well as an ‘incontrovertibly flawed methodology’ to calculate the climate impact of U.S. LNG. The Breakthrough Institute also correctly points out that Howarth’s findings are a major outlier compared to nearly all other lifecycle emissions analyses of U.S. LNG, including those incorporating the most up-to-date data.”
Indeed, what the interview does not explain is that experts from all corners broke down the falsity of Howarth’s claims. Forbes contributor and chemical engineer Robert Rapier wrote that Howarth’s analysis was based on assumptions that presumed: “a significantly higher leak rate than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Estimates, the leakage rate would not decline as leaks are identified and fixed, and a time frame limited to 20 years, exaggerating methane’s impact which trails off over longer periods.”
Michael Levi, Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, also reviewed the study, writing:
“Alas, his analysis is based on extremely weak data, and also has a severe methodological flaw (plus some other questionable decisions), all of which means that his bottom line conclusions shouldn’t carry weight.” (emphasis added)
On Howarth’s point about responses like Breakthrough’s not being peer-reviewed, Levi actually calls into question that process, saying that he worries “what this paper says about the peer review process and the way the press treats it.” He continues:
“These reviewers don’t appear to have been on the ball. Alas, this sort of thing is inevitable in academic publishing. It’s a useful caution, though, against treating peer review as a mark of infallibility, as too many in the climate debate – both media and advocates – have done.” (emphasis added)
Levi explains that he “won’t catalogue every problem with the study – it’s more useful, I think, to flag the biggest issues.” Those are:
- Bad Data: “First, the data for leakage from well completions and pipelines, which is where he’s finding most of his methane leaks, is really bad…There is simply no way to know (without access to much more data) if the numbers he uses are at all representative of reality.”
- Wrong Comparison: “Second, Howarth’s gas-to-coal comparisons are all done on a per energy unit basis…Here’s the thing: modern gas power generation technology is a lot more efficient than modern coal generation, so a gigajoule of gas produces a lot more electricity than a gigajoule of coal. The per kWh comparison is the correct one, but Howarth doesn’t do it. This is an unforgivable methodological flaw; correcting for it strongly tilts Howarth’s calculations back toward gas, even if you accept everything else he says.”
- Easily Fixable With Technology: “Third, the problems with gas that Howarth flags have cheap technological fixes (green well completion techniques, better pipeline care), though there may be institutional barriers to implementing them.” (emphasis added)
The issues that Levi describes are in line with those from experts that have repeatedly debunked Howarth’s claims that not only LNG exports, but also natural gas, hydrogen – and everything in between – are worse for the environment than other fuel sources, calling his research “extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions.”
In fact, his methane research has been heavily criticized over the years by Carnegie Mellon University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Energy Technology Lab, IHS-CERA, Worldwatch Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, former state regulators, and the Clean Air Taskforce, just to name a few. His Cornell colleagues have even chimed in, saying:
“Here we reiterate and substantiate our charges that none of [Howarth’s] conclusions are warranted.” (emphasis added)
Howarth’s research is an outlier that is at odds with research like that of the National Bureau of Economic Research which found that “by 2030, if gas markets remain integrated and current trends continue, the U.S. power-generation sector will emit 145 million fewer metric tons of CO2 than it would have absent integration.”
Likewise, the Energy Information Administration stated that natural gas emits less CO2 emissions than coal or other petroleum-based fuel sources, and emits less of nearly all air pollutants than other fossil fuel-based energy sources.
And even the DOE – which used Howarth’s study to justify its LNG pause – has confirmed that LNG exports did not increase greenhouse gas emissions, saying:
“Both the 2014 and 2019 analysis concluded that that the use of U.S. LNG exports for electricity generation in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for electricity generation.”
Wrong On LNG’s Impact On Inflation and Domestic Prices
Howarth: “You know, there are economic aspects, I’m told by my friends who are experts in the area of economics of natural gas, that the LNG exports in the United States have demonstrably increased the price of natural gas consumed in the U.S. and have also increased the electric prices across the country, because natural gas is a heavy source of energy for electricity. Some of the inflation that everyone’s so concerned about is caused by the LNG exports.”
LNG exports create jobs and drive a strong economy – and data show that’s happening without driving up domestic prices.
A 2018 DOE study found no relationship between LNG exports and energy prices:
“U.S. natural gas prices are far more dependent on available resources and technologies to extract available resources than on U.S. policies surrounding LNG exports.”
Similarly, Dr. Dean Foreman, chief economist for the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA), explains:
“Our research confirms that expanded LNG exports actually spur production and productivity gains, which help to drive prices down.”
The American Petroleum Institute (API) expanded on this is a recent report, noting there is a clear disconnect between domestic and international natural gas prices:
“Despite a record level of natural gas exports during the first six months of 2023, U.S. natural gas prices at Henry Hub averaged $2.48 per MMBtu, the lowest six-month average in over 35 years (outside of the COVID-19 pandemic).”
Despite the incredible growth of the U.S. LNG industry since 2016 – including the United States becoming the largest exporter in 2023 – domestic residential natural gas prices remained some of the lowest ones in the world, as shown by the International Energy Agency’s data below:
Howarth Is Far From Objective
Howarth: “…I hate to get involved in partisan politics as an objective research scientist and professor…”
Howarth: “Well, part of the inflation and rising energy prices in the U.S. has come from LNG. So if Trump really wants to address inflation, he should put a stop to LNG, but we’ll see.”
Fact check: Howarth’s career has been blatantly political and anything but objective as he has sought to ban U.S. oil and natural gas development and related activities like LNG exports. In fact, his co-author on the original 2011 research, Anthony Ingraffea, admitted in 2015 to incorporating “advocacy-laced words” into his research:
“You can read any of the papers I participated in writing and you can easily detect the words we use, the phraseology… predilection. I wouldn’t say bias… it’s too strong a word. But, in the conclusions and in the summaries and the abstract, it’s clear what we owe people to provide by reading this paper. And that’s a form of advocacy. And we have advocacy-laced…advocacy-laced words and phrases in our papers.” (emphasis added)
Ingraffea also said in reference to his research with Howarth:
“I’d be lying if I said that I don’t… that I haven’t entered any of the studies that I have participated in in the last five years that led to my being able to publicly speak or publish in peer-review papers… I’d be lying if I told you I went into every one of those with an entirely objective, blank opinion. I didn’t know. I didn’t care. Whatever happened when the numbers were done, I’d be [inaudible]. I’d be lying if I said that. I’m sorry. [cross talk] It would be untrue.” (emphasis added)
Howarth sits on the board of directors of Food and Water Watch (F&WW), an organization who says its board is comprised of “leaders in activism” and prides itself on being “the first U.S. national organization to call for a ban on fracking.”
Additionally, Howarth’s research is funded by the Park Foundation, a group that a 2018 Northeastern University study found to be one of the largest funders of anti-fracking research and activism. The Park Foundation’s President Adelaide Park – a family heir – has said:
“In our work to oppose fracking, the Park Foundation has simply helped to fuel an army of courageous individuals and NGOs.” (emphasis added)
And Howarth notably joined Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Representatives Jared Huffman (D-CA), Nanette Barragán (D-CA) and Jennifer McClellan (D-VA) during a call with journalists to inaccurately argue that LNG was dirtier than coal and support the Biden administration’s pause on LNG exports.
Perhaps most notably in relation to this study is that Howarth released his analysis on LNG after activist Bill McKibben encouraged him to do so prematurely to influence the Biden administration’s decision on the LNG pause. As Bloomberg reports:
“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.”
Bottom Line: This flawed research has been used to justify policies that could have significant ramifications for the United States and our allies – and that is a fact that even Howarth can’t ignore.
The post No Surprise: Researcher Behind Controversial LNG Study Again Makes Unfounded Claims appeared first on .
This post appeared first on Energy In Depth.
