My colleagues from the Financial Times stationed in China have unearthed a revealing trend: the transformative embrace of inexpensive natural gas has prompted many truckers throughout the nation to pivot towards vehicles powered by this alternative fuel, which is, in turn, curtailing China’s voracious demand for oil. Analysts are voicing concerns that the demand for diesel in this vast and complex economy may have hit its zenith sooner than anyone had anticipated—an unsettling development for traders who remain anxious over languid oil consumption in the world’s second-largest economy.
Thank you for your attention,
Alexandra
Research into LNG’s Environmental Consequences Sparks Controversy
A scholarly article that played a pivotal role in the Biden administration’s decision to pause approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects has undergone rigorous peer review. This research claims that LNG emits more greenhouse gases than coal, reigniting a heated debate between environmental proponents and industry advocates over the fuel’s environmental ramifications.
Cornell University’s Robert Howarth, a distinguished expert in methane, asserts compellingly in this study that the emissions profile of LNG overshadows that of coal by an alarming 33% over a two-decade horizon, vehemently contesting the oil and gas sector’s claim that LNG is a cleaner alternative.
“While it’s true that carbon dioxide emissions are significantly higher when coal is burned compared to natural gas, the rampant methane emissions can dwarf that difference,” Howarth elucidates in his article published in Energy Science and Engineering. He points out that LNG, predominantly sourced from shale gas, releases a notable volume of methane, an effect that intensifies during the processes of liquefaction and transportation.
Since its preliminary draft emerged last year, this paper has ignited a political tempest, fundamentally shaking the foundational belief that substituting coal with gas is a meaningful stride towards global decarbonization. The draft’s findings were instrumental in the Biden administration’s decision to halt new LNG export terminal approvals in January. The Department of Energy has since embarked on an independent evaluation of the environmental and economic ramifications of the burgeoning U.S. LNG sector, which surpassed Qatar as the globe’s leading LNG exporter in 2023.
Contradictory to Howarth’s conclusions are reports bolstered by industry lobbyists, insisting that LNG is indeed a cleaner alternative to coal and serves as a transitional phase towards a renewable energy future. This chasm in perspectives underscores an escalating schism between advocates and detractors of LNG, often defined along political lines.
This debate diverges sharply from findings of a 2019 report commissioned by the U.S. government, which asserted that deploying U.S. LNG for power generation in European and Asian markets would not significantly heighten greenhouse gas emissions from a lifecycle standpoint.
“We have no qualms about incorporating Howarth’s study amid the comprehensive assessment by the DOE. The frustrating part, however, is that it seems singularly responsible for this monumental pivot in policy, one that until recently enjoyed bipartisan support,” voiced Dustin Meyer, the American Petroleum Institute’s senior vice president overseeing policy, economics, and regulatory affairs.
In Congress, Republicans have vehemently criticized Howarth’s research as fundamentally flawed, chastising the Biden administration for leaning on it while enacting January’s moratorium. Yet, Howarth maintains that his paper has undergone an extensive, independent review process, which encompassed four rounds of scrutiny and six anonymous peer reviewers.
Notably, considerable dissent exists within the oil and gas sectors regarding Howarth’s research methodology. “Imagine scrutinizing every conceivable variable and invariably selecting the most pessimistic scenario for each—only that approach could converge on the findings presented in this paper,” Meyer contended.
Howarth acknowledges that his analytical approach diverges from that of other LNG impact assessments. “The primary reason why several studies report lower total emissions than I do is that they apply more conservative estimates concerning methane emissions in the upstream and midstream processes,” he articulated.
Methane, a chief component of natural gas, remains invisible and elusive; it is odorless, colorless, and remarkably difficult to quantify. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it boasts a potency more than 28 times that of CO₂ in its heat-trapping capabilities within our atmosphere.
Howarth points out that his estimates for methane emissions derive from independent sources rather than relying on unverified self-reporting metrics provided by the oil and gas sector, which he asserts are woefully underestimated compared to peer-reviewed literature.
Emerging evidence is building a case for the notion that methane emissions associated with oil and gas infrastructure are escalating beyond historical projections—an assertion supported by reports from both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Drew Shindell, an earth science professor at Duke University and a climate expert, has expressed support for Howarth’s findings, deeming them credible. “Bob’s conclusions are plausible, and qualitatively, I believe they are accurate,” Shindell stated. “Having analyzed Howarth’s work for over a decade, I hold confidence in the rigor and integrity of his research.”
However, Shindell cautions that the scarcity of comprehensive data regarding liquefied natural gas—being a relatively novel fuel—adds layers of uncertainty to the overall picture, as each LNG facility operates under unique parameters.
(Contributions by Alexandra White and Jamie Smyth)