On the heels of Hurricane Helene
devastating the U.S. Southeast and sparking fresh calls for action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, a long-awaited study revealed Thursday that the planet-heating pollution from liquefied natural gas is worse than that of coal.
“Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world’s largest exporter,”
wrote Cornell University scientist Robert Howarth, who analyzed the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG produced in and exported from the U.S.
Howarth found that “the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal” in terms of its 20-year global warming potential, and “even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission… which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.”
Advocates of bold climate action welcomed the formal publication of what Third Act founder Bill McKibben
called a “crucial paper.”
“LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!”
The study, published online by the journal
Energy Science & Engineering, follows U.S. President Joe Biden pausing approvals for all LNG exports to non-fair trade agreement countries and comes a month out from the presidential election, in which Democratic Vice President Kalama Harris is facing Big Oil-backed Republican former President Donald Trump.
“This is a HUGE deal for the Biden administration’s ongoing review of LNG exports,” said Jamie Henn, executive director of Fossil Free Media and a founder of 350.org, sharing Howarth’s findings on social media. Climate campaigners are calling on the Biden-Harris administration to make the January pause permanent.
“This should be the final nail in the coffin for the false narrative that LNG was somehow a climate solution,” Henn
added in a statement. “This now peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that LNG is worse for the climate than coal, let alone clean energy alternatives. Approving more LNG exports is clearly incompatible with the public interest.”
As Henn and others acknowledged, Howarth’s research has been targeted by journalists and the fossil fuel industry.
“This paper has been widely discussed, revised, and is now peer-reviewed and published,”
said Jason Rylander, legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy. It’s a highway to climate hell.”
Alex Walker, climate finance program manager at the Canadian group Environmental Defense, also
responded to the research by stressing that, contrary to claims by the fossil fuel industry and its political allies, “LNG is not a bridge fuel.”
Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
said on social media that “there is no environmental case for increased U.S. LNG exports.”
Howarth is on the
board of directors of the Food & Water Watch, which similarly pointed to the paper as further proof that “LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!”
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media,
declared Thursday that “the science is clear.”
“There’s no place for LNG in a clean energy future,” DiPaola said. “It’s time to double down on truly clean alternatives like wind, solar, and energy efficiency.”
