LNG may be even dirtier than coal

The scourge of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, Robert Howarth, is back. Howarth, a biogeochemist and environmental scientist at Cornell University, has already raised the hackles of the oil and gas industry with his analysis of the hidden carbon footprint of the LNG industry. He has now published a new study (still in preprint and not peer-reviewed) that paints the LNG industry in an even worse light, concluding that LNG is even worse than coal from a cradle-to-grave carbon pollution viewpoint.

Howarth argues that, taking into account methane emissions and the whole lifecycle (including extraction, liquefaction, tanker transportation, regasification, distribution and consumption), LNG maybe up to 2.7 times worse than coal for the environment. Even taking transportation out of the equation, LNG is still slightly higher in emissions than coal.

Howarth is a polarizing figure in this area of research, and both this and his previous publications have met with stiff resistance in some quarters. But I have always had a sneaking suspicion that LNG is not as good an alternative fuel as many in Western Canada and the USA maintain, and I have not been swayed by arguments that LNG is a  "transition fuel", or a "bridge to the new energy economy". Other studies have also come down against that kind of thinking.

But Howarth's research seems to have been instrumental in Joe Biden's recent decision to temporarily halt new LNG terminal expansions in the USA until their climate impact can be fully investigated. Future "market need" is also being analyzed as part of the investigation. The USA is now the world's largest natural gas exporter, having overtaken both Australia and Qatar, so to "tap the brakes" on LNG while a time-consuming environmental review takes place is a brave move on Biden's part. 

There is no sign of such bravery in Canada, although the federal Liberal government has said that it is not interested in subsidizing the industry: "The government is opposed to using government money to fund inefficient fossil fuel subsidies ... We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities". Well, that's something, I suppose.