LNG is (much) worse for the environment than we thought

A new peer-reviewed study has definitively put paid to the convenient fiction employed by fossil fuel proponents that liquid natural gas (LNG) is a "good thing", because it represents a "brdge fuel" that will allow us to gradually wean ourselves (and other countries) off "dirty fuels" like coal and oil.

It's a fiction you hear often, particularly from Western Canada and the oil states of the US and the Middle East. It never did ring true to me, and now we have some strong evidence to the contrary.

The long-awaited Cornell University study, published in the Energy Science and Engineering journal, actually concludes that LNG is even worse than coal as regards climate change. 33% worse in fact, in terms of its 20-year global warming potential. Even over 100 years (which downplays the warming potential of methane, and might be considered a more "forgiving" scale), LNG's carbon footprint still exceeds that of coal. 

Part of the reason for this is that LNG needs to be supercooled to convert it to to liquid form, and then transported in large tankers to market.

So, whatever British Columbia and Alberta might tell you, LNG is not a climate solution, nor even a temporary bridge fuel. It is a dangerous distraction from serious climate action, and should not be given preferential treatment.