The effects of liquefied natural gas on the climate are worse than the effects of coal

A recent study by an American professor deals a heavy blow to plans to replace coal with liquefied natural gas (LNG) in power and thermal power plants.

Its estimates show that emissions from the entire production, distribution and consumption chain of LNG produced in the US and transported to Europe are almost three times higher than the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of coal in thermal power plants.

The article entitled "The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States" is signed by Robert W. Howarth, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, and is available at https://tinyurl.com/4en9zp6h.

Right from the beginning, the author specifies that pollutant emissions are particularly high in the case of shale gas, the exploitation of which has allowed the United States to become the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world. Extraction from this type of deposits is accompanied by massive emissions of CO2, and then there are massive releases of methane into the atmosphere, a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, at all stages of production and transportation.

A major source of emissions is the process of venting methane from tanks on ships during transport to reduce pressure. Modern technologies allow its use to power engines, but the costs remain particularly high.

"In all scenarios considered, total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are higher than those from coal, being 24% to 274% higher," the University professor's study states Cornell.

As bad as the comparison between LNG and coal looks, the situation is actually much worse. "In all the scenarios considered, for all types of ships used to transport LNG, methane emissions exceed carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the final combustion of LNG," Professor Howarth emphasizes.

So the pollution is very high in the case of LNG even before its final use? Shouldn't the "competent" authorities have the answer to such "insignificant" questions before launching all kinds of phantasmagoric projects, financed with massive loans, by completely ignoring the economic aspects?

Where were and where are the scientists, engineers, academics in the towns and villages who are supposed to show the functional illiterates in government the true size and potential cost behind climate propaganda?

"While some proponents of LNG have argued that it has a climate benefit by replacing coal, the analysis presented here disproves this," concludes the study published by Professor Robert W. Howarth.

The American professor's conclusions were presented in the Die Welt newspaper under the title "Imported liquefied gas is much more harmful to the environment than coal."

As the German publication writes, the non-governmental organization Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. - DUH), which enjoys significant influence in setting environmental policies not only in Germany but also in Europe, believes that the results of the study will lead to increased pressure on the government in Berlin and the European Union for action.

In a few days, Brussels will vote on much stricter regulations regarding methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

Will the European politicians come to the conclusion that liquefied natural gas should also be banned, especially the one imported from the USA?

The American magazine "The New Yorker" presented the data of the American researcher as proof of the wrong climate policies of the Biden administration.

"LNG export capacities are being significantly expanded in the US, against the background of high demand from Germany, which goes against the US government's climate protection goals," the magazine from New York points out.

The stakes are extremely high, but the effects of LNG on climate change do not seem to matter at all to the authorities in Washington.

The priority is different, according to a recent article in the Financial Times, which states that "the US is trying to undermine Russia's ambition to become a major LNG exporter".

The US authorities have just announced the imposition of sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 project, in which Novatek, Russia's second largest gas producer after Gazprom, is the main shareholder with a 60% stake. Other shareholders are two state-owned companies from China, the French company TotalEnergies and an association of Japanese companies.

The US sanctions involve the blocking of any purchases of liquefied gas from Arctic LNG 2 for countries in Europe and Asia. If it were not a disgusting hypocrisy, the American sanctions should be praised as exemplary measures to save the environment.

The New Yorker article mentions that the Cornell professor is not the first "offender", but has proven many times that he is right. Professor Howarth began studying the climate implications of methane emissions in 2009. The findings of his studies were downplayed by Obama administration officials as they questioned the effects of shale gas mining.

"There was a very famous report from Cornell, which we analyzed and decided was not credible," declared Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy in the Obama administration. Subsequent data confirmed the studies published by Professor Howarth, which were also confirmed by a research team from Harvard.

Now, the American professor claims that "the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG is larger than that of coal, and short-term energy needs such as those caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine are better met by reopening coal plants closed, than by expanding the LNG infrastructure".

Its imperative conclusion emphasizes the need to abandon the use of LNG as a fuel as quickly as possible and stop the construction of any type of LNG infrastructure.

The reason is simple to understand, even for European politicians, and starts from "the footprint of greenhouse gases, greater than that of natural gas".

Under these conditions, it only takes an insignificant intellectual effort to realize that one of the global priorities is the cessation of the use of liquefied natural gas.

Does such an insignificant effort really exceed the intellectual capacity of the authorities in Europe or is it something else?