Pragmatic policy decisions should be informed by facts and data, not sensationalized headlines that do not accurately represent the findings within the studies.
The results in study after study are clear:
Replacing foreign coal with U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) leads to lifecycle emissions reductions.
In July 2024, ICF International, a leading science-based climate consultancy that conducts independent research for government agencies and organizations, released a study analyzing the lifecycle of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of U.S. LNG exports. The study found that:
Without U.S. LNG exports abroad, global GHG emissions would have increased in 2022 by
mostly produced by coal.
The reduction in global GHG emissions attributed to U.S. LNG exports in 2030 is projected to be between
per year.
Other studies, including those conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and Carnegie Mellon, found similar results.
Replacing foreign coal with U.S. LNG reduces emissions, period.
“Natural gas can rival coal’s climate-warming potential when leaks are counted”
“Natural gas only rivals coal’s climate-warming potential when coal methane leaks aren’t counted”
The media sensationalized a 2023 study’s scenario indicating that natural gas could be worse for the climate than coal if the methane leakage rate exceeded 0.2%. However, they failed to mention that this figure relied on not counting methane emissions from coal production.
There is no such thing as coal with no associated methane emissions—it does not exist—and coal is the largest source of methane emissions from fossil fuels in the world according to the predominant autonomous intergovernmental organization, the International Energy Agency (IEA).
When accounting for methane from coal production, the study found that only natural gas systems with methane leakage rates exceeding 4.7% (20-year timeframe) or 7.6% (100-year timeframe), significantly higher than reported by the media, have comparable life-cycle emissions to coal mines. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), average U.S. methane leakage from oil and gas facilities is just 1.33%.
“How One Methane Scientist Influenced Biden’s Pause on LNG Approvals”
“How one Methane Scientist’s ‘Deeply Flawed’ Study Influenced Biden’s Pause on LNG Approvals Before it was Peer-Reviewed”
In October 2023, Robert Howarth of Cornell University circulated a study — a year before it was peer reviewed — claiming that U.S. LNG exports are worse for the climate than coal. The study was covered extensively in the media, and is widely credited with influencing the Biden Administration’s LNG export facility approval pause. Globally recognized environmental research center, The Breakthrough Institute noted in a 2024 counter report that the study “is riddled with errors,” including:
Accounting for all errors in Howarth’s analysis, he overestimated the GHG intensity of delivered U.S. LNG by 32% on a 20-year basis and 30% on a 100-year basis.
“New Data Shows U.S. Oil & Gas Methane Emissions Over Four Times Higher than EPA Estimates, Eight Times Greater than Industry Target”
“Data Shows U.S. Oil & Gas Methane Emissions Have Dropped 15% over the past 5 years”
In July 2024, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) released a report finding that the oil & gas methane loss rate observed across 12 U.S. shale basins is 1.6%. But rather than relying on the EPA national methane emissions rate to compare this loss with the generally accepted national averages, EDF used the EPA’s 2020 gridded inventory to pick out a few 100 square kilometer blocks that were 4x higher than the national average and choose to promote these as the overall findings of the report.
Had EDF utilized the national rate as they have in previous studies, this report would have demonstrated a 15% reduction in methane emissions from oil & gas companies since 2018 — consistent with what is being reported to the EPA.
EDF could also have compared the national rate to the gridded inventory and produced an explanation for why they believe the latter was more accurate. But they failed to do so and instead produced a flawed methodology that does not accurately represent this reduction in overall methane emissions over the last several years.
Media misrepresentations of studies have led to questionable policy decisions — such as the Biden Administration’s pause on LNG export approvals — that do not reflect the full picture, putting energy security and our climate goals at risk.
We must rely on accurate data which clearly shows that replacing coal with U.S. LNG for power generation reduces life-cycle emissions.
