It seems too predictable to even mention at this point, but it turns out the rationale the Biden-Harris White House and Department of Energy used to justify their year-long “” policy.pause” Liquefied natural gas (LNG) permits were based on questionable science.
oh.
When the moratorium was implemented last January, proponents of the moratorium cited a draft study conducted by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, a longtime anti-natural gas activist, as scientific justification. of preprint of Howarth’s research claims that the lifecycle emissions caused by the LNG value chain are between 24% and 274% higher than coal. Critics of the move said at the time that the claims, particularly its upper range, were too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but the Biden-Harris administration, as usual, is appealing to campaign donors concerned about climate change. Wanting to make him happy, he immediately took action. (Related article: The entire effort to halt new natural gas exports traces its origins to an Ivy League professor and his shaky research.)
Last week, nine months after this absurd license suspension, Howarth was finally released. his last research Contains highly modified results. The final version of the study now claims that LNG emissions are 33% higher than coal emissions, but does not say by what extent. Even 33% seems questionable given the different emission profiles of natural gas and coal, but it’s only a fraction of the upper limit the professor was initially concerned about.
Mr. Howarth is board of directors Members of anti-natural gas conflict group Food and Water Watch defend final study By saying that“From a public policy perspective, I think I should emphasize that my estimate has increased over time from 24% to 33%. This is certainly true for the vast majority of tankers.”
But while Howarth defends himself as a reliable researcher, he is not shy about his anti-natural gas activism. in February interviewFor example, he told Bloomberg“We need to phase out all fossil fuels as soon as possible. Let’s go ahead and get rid of the gas system.” Clearly, one effective way to “decommission the gas system” is to It’s about convincing regulators to stop issuing permits.
However, competing research on this topic contradicts Howarth’s findings. A study published by ICF International found in July that using U.S.-produced LNG to replace coal reduces emissions by 48% to 86%. another similar research Berkeley Research Group found that replacing Asian coal with U.S. LNG would reduce emissions by 50% to 55%.
One of the main critics of the Howarth study, Jonah Messinger of the Breakthrough Institute, pointed out a number of problems with Howarth’s methodology in an analysis published in July (“Key papers on liquefied natural gas emissions are full of errorsJuly 30, 2024).
When asked to comment on the final study, Messenger said many of the original criticisms still remain unaddressed.
Following Messenger’s investigation, Republicans in both the House and Senate began investigating the issue. In September their group bicameral letter Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has publicly supported the shutdown multiple times. The letter asks, among other questions, whether Mr. Granholm personally directed Howarth’s study and whether the DOE relied on a preliminary draft of that study as the rationale for invoking the permit suspension. are. We also ask the Department of Energy to brief Congress on the progress of the public interest analysis it will conduct regarding the emissions comparison issue.
so far, letter There is no answer. Again, not surprising.
Asked for comment, Tim Stewart, president of the American Oil and Gas Association, said: “Opponents of clean LNG in the United States are making a bit of a fuss here. Foundations funded by liberal billionaires are paying for research.” The study was published in the New York Times and amplified by other media outlets, with friendly federal officials insisting that the policy measures were based on “science.” It uses the pulse of the world to justify policy measures. Researchers who reach different conclusions are simply ignored. This is not what public policy should be. ”
Whether justified or not, granting this moratorium will undermine the competitive position of the U.S. LNG industry in global markets and make it more difficult to secure the billions of dollars in financing needed to launch future export projects. There is no doubt about that. (Related: New GreenAugs study questions rationale behind one of Biden’s biggest crackdowns on key energy sectors)
Regardless of whether this was the administration’s intention, the results are undeniable.
David Blackmon is a Texas-based energy writer and consultant. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, specializing in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
