Exported natural gas produces far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, contradicting the fossil fuel industry’s claims that gas is a cleaner alternative, according to a new study.

This research challenges the rapid expansion of gas exports from the U.S. to Europe and Asia, an effort previously promoted as a solution to climate change.

Although coal is known as the dirtiest fossil fuel when burned for energy, gas producers have long argued that natural gas is a “bridge” fuel, supposedly cleaner than coal, and positioned as a “climate solution.”

This narrative has driven the construction of numerous liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, especially in the U.S.

However, the new study, published in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, reveals that over a 20-year period, LNG is responsible for 33% more planet-warming emissions than coal.

“The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken – LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper.

“To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.”

The study highlights that much of LNG’s carbon footprint comes from the processes required to extract, transport, and export the gas, rather than just the emissions from burning it.

The final combustion of gas in homes and businesses accounts for only about a third of the total emissions involved in the entire LNG lifecycle, which includes drilling, moving, cooling, and shipping the gas internationally.

The large resulting emissions mean there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source”, the paper says, adding that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority”.

This research directly challenges the rationale behind the massive increase in LNG export facilities along the U.S. Gulf Coast, where gas is shipped to foreign markets. The U.S. has become the world’s leading LNG exporter, ahead of Australia and Qatar.

Proponents of LNG argue that it could help replace coal in countries like China and support Europe in reducing its reliance on Russian gas.

“US LNG exports can help accelerate environmental progress across the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner natural gas to reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market development at the American Petroleum Institute, has said.

Yet, scientists warn that the expansion of LNG is incompatible with global efforts to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.

One of the key issues identified by the research is methane leakage. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas—about 80 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

The study found that as much as 3.5% of the gas produced leaks into the atmosphere before it is burned, significantly higher than previous estimates. These methane emissions contribute to the growing concern that global climate goals could be derailed.

The energy-intensive process of LNG production further adds to its environmental impact. The study found that nearly half of the total emissions occur before the gas even reaches customers.

After being extracted, often through hydraulic fracturing (fracking), gas is transported through pipelines to coastal terminals, where it is supercooled to -162°C (-260°F) to be turned into liquid. This liquid is then stored in large containers and shipped across oceans to overseas markets, where it is turned back into gas and burned.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal,” said Howarth. “The science is pretty clear here: it’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions..”

The publication of the study has sparked intense political debate. Even before its official release, the draft findings were circulated by climate activists, including Bill McKibben, and reportedly influenced the Biden administration’s decision to pause new LNG export permits earlier this year.

This move infuriated the oil and gas industry, which has filed lawsuits in response. Four Republican members of Congress also sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy, criticising Howarth’s study as “flawed” and “erroneous.”

Critics, including some energy experts and gas-friendly groups, argue that the study overestimates LNG’s emissions.

“It’s hard to swallow,” said David Dismukes, a leading Louisiana energy consultant and researcher. “Does gas have a climate impact? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.”

However, Howarth’s research has undergone extensive peer review, with five rounds of scrutiny by eight independent scientists. Howarth stands by his findings, stating that the U.S. faces a “huge choice” regarding LNG’s future, particularly with the 2024 presidential election approaching.

Donald Trump has promised to overturn Biden’s pause on LNG projects on his first day back in office, while Kamala Harris has softened her stance on banning fracking but continues to promise action on the climate crisis.

In support of the study, over 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists recently wrote to the Biden administration, urging it to maintain the pause on new LNG export projects.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University not involved in the research, called the findings “plausible” and highlighted the importance of considering LNG’s full environmental impact.

“Bob’s study adds to a lot of literature now that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the option to go to renewables,” Shindell said. “The debate isn’t really about whether gas is slightly better or worse than coal, though. It should be about how both are terrible and that we need to get rid of both of them.”

As the debate continues, this study challenges the widely accepted notion of LNG as a cleaner alternative, emphasising the urgent need for a more sustainable path to addressing the climate crisis.

 

——————————————————————————

At Natural World Fund, we are passionate about rewilding the UK to stop the decline in our wildlife.

Donate now and join in the solution!