A recent research paper is challenging conventional wisdom regarding the environmental impact of exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a cleaner alternative to coal. This study raises important questions about the unprecedented growth of gas exports from the United States to Europe and Asia, directly contradicting claims made by the fossil fuel industry.
For years, oil and gas producers have promoted natural gas as a “bridge” fuel toward a cleaner energy future, especially amid the rapid increase in LNG terminals across the U.S. However, the paper reveals that LNG generates 33% more greenhouse gas emissions than coal over a 20-year timeframe. Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and the study’s author, stated, “The belief that coal is worse for the climate is a misconception—LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel.” He stressed that viewing LNG as a climate solution is fundamentally misguided, characterizing it as “greenwashing” by oil and gas companies that have downplayed emissions from this energy source.
The research underscores that the processes involved in drilling, transporting, and cooling gas significantly contribute to overall emissions. Notably, the combustion of gas in homes and businesses represents only about a third of the total emissions linked to LNG. According to the findings, there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source,” and the paper makes a strong case for prioritizing the global phase-out of LNG.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Science & Engineering, the report raises doubts about the rationale behind the extensive investments in LNG infrastructure along the U.S. Gulf Coast, designed to export gas to international markets. Currently, the U.S. stands as the largest LNG exporter, followed closely by Australia and Qatar.
Past estimates from government and industry sources suggested that LNG emissions were considerably lower than those from coal. Advocates maintained that an uptick in U.S. exports could facilitate a transition to cleaner energy for nations such as China, while also aiding European allies in dealing with energy crises stemming from geopolitical conflicts.
However, scientific evaluations indicate that the expansion of LNG usage is inconsistent with global climate objectives. Research has shown that methane leakage during gas extraction operations is significantly higher than previously estimated. Howarth’s study indicates that as much as 3.5% of delivered gas leaks into the atmosphere, which is especially alarming given that methane is 80 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the short term.
Howarth’s research reveals that nearly half of the emissions associated with LNG occur during the extensive transportation from drilling sites to export terminals, where gas is liquefied at extremely low temperatures. “This entire process is far more energy-intensive than coal,” Howarth noted. “The science is quite clear: believing that gas can be shipped internationally with minimal emissions is wishful thinking.”
Before its official publication, Howarth’s research ignited considerable debate, even leading the Biden administration to temporarily halt new LNG export permits. This decision has prompted backlash from the oil and gas sector, resulting in lawsuits and calls from congressional Republicans for communications between the Energy Department and Howarth.
Critics within the gas-friendly community have argued that the study overstates LNG emissions. David Dismukes, a well-known energy consultant in Louisiana, remarked, “Does gas have an impact on the climate? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.” In defense of his study, Howarth reiterated that the peer review process was exceptionally rigorous, involving five rounds of scrutiny by eight different scientists. He expressed concern that the critiques appeared to be politically motivated.
As the presidential election draws near, Howarth underscored the vital choices facing the U.S. He pointed out that former President Donald Trump has vowed to resume LNG project approvals, while Vice President Kamala Harris has shifted her stance from banning fracking to advocating for broader climate action.
In support of Howarth’s findings, over 125 climate and health scientists sent a letter to the Biden administration urging a continued pause on LNG exports. Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, validated the research, explaining, “Bob’s study adds to a growing body of literature that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the opportunity to shift to renewables. The real debate shouldn’t just be whether gas is better or worse than coal; it should focus on the urgent need to eliminate both for a sustainable future.”
