A study cited by supporters of the Biden-Harris administration’s pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) export permits passed peer review and was published Thursday. [emphasis, links added]
An analysis of earlier versions of the study, before it went through peer review, found it contained errors, which has sparked a congressional investigation into how much the study played into the LNG permit pause and whether or not the Department of Energy had any role in the research.
Revisions to a Flawed Report
The original preprint, which is the version before going through peer review, estimated that LNG exports produce 24% to 274% greater greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
The published study, which was authored by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, estimated 33% and doesn’t include any upper range.
An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute found several errors with the study and noted that the comparisons of emissions from LNG versus coal were revised several times.
The Breakthrough Institute’s analysis caught the attention of Republicans in the Senate and House. Rep. Pfluger, R-Texas, and Senator Tim Scott R-S.C., led a bicameral letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm that asks if she directed the study, how much it was relied upon in justifying the LNG moratorium, and if studies the DOE is undertaking use similarly flawed methodologies.
At press time, Just the News was unable to find any response or statement from Granholm about the letter.
The Biden-Harris administration enacted the LNG policy in January. Howarth told Just the News that he had no interaction with the administration over the past year.
He also said he excluded the upper-end estimate in the published study because it represented a small number of tankers. These were dropped from the final version, he said, because new data became available in July showing these tankers are no longer at sea.
He said that the range he presented narrowed with each revision of his study as better information became available, which allowed for greater certainty in the published study.
He said that the Biden-Harris administration relied on the lower end of his estimate, 24%, and not the upper range.
Howarth openly admitted that his research on LNG life-cycle emissions was prematurely released with the ultimate goal of getting rid of natural gas entirely.
“So from a public policy perspective, I think you should stress that my estimate increased over time from 24% to 33%. This is certainly true for the large majority of tankers,” he said.
“Hardcore Advocacy”
Howarth is an outspoken advocate for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. He is on the board of directors of the anti-fossil fuel nonprofit Food and Water Watch.
In a Bloomberg interview in February about his study and the LNG export pause, Howarth said, “We need to get rid of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Let’s just move on and get rid of the gas system.”
The Cornell professor’s activism has led to accusations of bias in his research. Tom Shepstone, an energy expert who publishes “Energy Security and Freedom” on Substack, told Just the News that there are researchers who have opinions, but they will make it clear that their research is distinct from their opinions.
“How can you be a credible authority on issues of methane and all these things, and then also be an advocate for an outfit [Food and Water Watch] that makes it very clear they want to end fossil fuels? I just don’t understand that. I don’t know why anybody would take that kind of research seriously. You can’t mix hardcore advocacy with science,” Shepstone said.
Howarth denies that there’s any bias in his work. He said well over 100 “highly respected scientists,” including Dr. Michael Mann, sent a letter to Granholm last month in support of Howarth’s research.
“My reputation as a highly objective research scientist is firm. Beyond that, my work is published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal, after a very close look by many experts in the field in an anonymous peer review,” meaning they had no fear of retribution should they find flaws in his work, Howarth said.
In March, Howarth openly admitted that his research on LNG life-cycle emissions was prematurely released with the ultimate goal of getting rid of natural gas entirely, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America through their “Energy in Depth” publication.
Competing Studies
Howarth has been criticized for questionable research in the past, and his conclusions are contrary to a broad scientific consensus that a switch from natural gas to coal has lowered greenhouse gas emissions.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group, points to other studies contradicting Howarth’s findings, such as a 2015 study published in Environmental Science and Technology which found that LNG, by displacing coal, reduces carbon emissions.
A study published in July by energy analysts ICF International on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from LNG finds that using coal rather than U.S. LNG increases emissions by 47.7% to 85.9%.
The liquefaction process, the study found, adds about 11% more greenhouse gas emissions than using natural gas domestically, but that’s still less than emissions from piped Russian natural gas and domestic coal.
“Howarth completely lacks credibility on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal. Basic peer review has discredited all his past studies, but he keeps at it because he’s funded by anti-oil and gas groups and foundations,” Sgamma said.
His latest paper was funded in part by the anti-fossil fuel nonprofit Park Foundation.
The global consulting firm Berkeley Research Group published a study this year on the lifestyle emissions of U.S. LNG compared to competing fuels and found that U.S. LNG exported to Europe and Asia is 50% to 55% lower in greenhouse gas intensity than the coal it displaces.
A 2019 study by the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratories had similar results.
Research to Policy
Energy analyst David Blackmon, who publishes his work on his “Energy Absurdities” Substack, told Just the News that as a result of the LNG policy and the uncertainty it’s created with European importers of American LNG, Qatar and Russia are now poised to satisfy European demand.
Construction of LNG export terminals is permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but the DOE grants export permits to nations having no free trade agreements with the U.S., which includes European nations.
Even though the pause doesn’t impact construction permits, the terminals aren’t profitable without the export permits. These billion-dollar investments become less attractive to investors, Blackmon said, as a result of the LNG pause.
Blackmon said the presidential election is going to determine whether these projects get the regulatory certainty they need to move forward.
“If Kamala Harris is installed in the White House in January, these kinds of baseless actions attacking natural gas will only be ramped up. So, it’s a really dangerous period of time we’re living in right now,” Blackmon said.
Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told Just the News that Howarth’s research follows a pattern in the energy debate that is found in everything from gas stoves to LNG exports.
“Big Green uses a proxy group to produce a fundamentally flawed ‘study,’ which is then circulated simultaneously to the friendly media and counterparts in regulatory agencies,” he said.
“The studies end up on the front page of the New York Times and are then amplified in the echo chamber over the next few hours. It doesn’t matter if the studies are peer-reviewed or not. All that matters is that there is a story,” Stewart added.
Read more at Just The News
Global Warming/Climate Change has more to do with Politics and Cash its what its all about noting that back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling and a New Ice Age this was Top News for leftists rags leftists rags like Time and Newsweek back then
Perhaps the most import aspect of this article is it documents the existence of junk scientists. They are primary climate activists and corrupt science to push the climate change agenda.
Alastair W. Allan said what I have been saying for a long time. At 420 ppm carbon dioxide is beyond its saturation point and increased concentrations will have negligible impact on warming. There is other science to consider the about absurd claim that LNG exports produce greater greenhouse gas emissions than coal. The chemical formula for coal is C. For natural gas it is CH4. Methane contains four times the hydrogen atoms as carbon. A kilogram of coal produces 29.3 megajoules when burned. A kilogram of methane 50 megajoules.
. The issue is the assumption that climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by humans. This however is contradicted by the “scientific method” and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data.
Carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat, which decreases rapidly as CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere increases. This scientific fact about CO2 changes everything about the common view of CO2 and climate change. It means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the “main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
Currently, carbon dioxide is a weak Greenhouse Gas. At today’s concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be will be even smaller. Thus, to repeat, the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false. Reference CO2 Coalition
Web Site,”Fact Section”. Expert Opinon Prepared fo the for The Foundation of “The Environment and Man”, The Court of Appeals, The Hague, Netherlands. Based on studies by Drs. R. Lindzen, of MIT, William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics Princeton University. and W. A. van Wijngaardenm, Professor York University, Canada.