A study cited by supporters of the Biden-Harris administration's moratorium on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses passed peer review and was released Thursday. [emphasis, links added]
An analysis of an earlier version of the study, before it passed peer review, found it contained errors, sparking a congressional investigation into the study's impact on the LNG license suspension and whether the Energy Department played any role in it.
Modifications to defective reports
The original preprint is the version prior to peer review, estimated LNG exports produce 24% to 274% higher greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
Published research authored by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth estimates 33% and does not include any upper limit.
The Breakthrough Institute's analysis found multiple errors in the study and noted that the comparison of LNG and coal emissions had been revised multiple times.
The Breakthrough Institute's analysis caught the attention of Senate and House Republicans. Texas Rep. Pfluger and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote a bicameral letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm asking whether She directed the study on the extent to which it was relied upon to justify the LNG moratorium and whether ongoing studies by the Department of Energy used similar flawed methods.
As of press time, Just news No response or statement from Granholm to the letter could be found.
The Biden-Harris administration enacted the LNG policy in January. howarth told Just news He has had no interaction with the government over the past year.
He also said he excluded the upper estimate from the published study because it represented a small number of tankers. These were removed from the final version, he said, Because new data released in July shows the tankers are no longer at sea.
He said the scope of his proposed study narrowed with each revision as better information became available, which gave the published research greater certainty.
He said the Biden-Harris administration is relying on the lower end of his estimate, which is 24%, rather than the upper end.
Howarth has publicly acknowledged that his study of LNG life cycle emissions was released prematurely and that the ultimate goal is to move away from natural gas entirely.
“So from a public policy perspective, I think you should highlight that my estimate has increased over time from 24% to 33%. That's true for the vast majority of tankers,” he said.
“Hard-Core Advocacy”
Howarth is an outspoken advocate for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. He serves on the board of directors of the anti-fossil fuel nonprofit Food & Water Watch.
in a Burundi February interview about his research and LNG export suspension, “We need to get off all fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” Howarth said. “Let's go ahead and get off the natural gas system.
The Cornell University professor's activism has led to accusations of bias in his research. Energy expert Tom Shepstone posted “Energy Security and Freedom” On Substack, tell Just news That Some researchers have an opinion, but they make it clear that their research differs from their opinion.
“How do you become a credible authority on methane and all these issues and then become an advocate for an institution? [Food and Water Watch] This is a clear indication that they want to end fossil fuels? I just don't understand. I don't know why anyone would take this kind of research seriously. You can't mix hardcore advocacy with science;said Shepstone.
Howarth denies any bias in his work. He said more than 100 “highly respected scientists,” including Dr. Michael Mann, sent a letter to Granholm last month supporting Howarth's research.
“My reputation as a highly objective research scientist is unwavering. In addition to this, my work has been published in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal and has been very carefully reviewed in anonymous peer review by many experts in the field. censorship,” meaning they wouldn't fear retaliation if they found flaws in his work, Howarth said.
March, Howarth has publicly acknowledged that his study of LNG life cycle emissions was released prematurely and that the ultimate goal is to move away from natural gas entirely, According to the Independent Petroleum Association of America’sdeep energy” publication.
Competitive research
Howarth has been criticized for questionable research in the past, and His conclusion runs contrary to the broad scientific consensus that switching from natural gas to coal can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group, pointed to other studies that contradict Howarth's findings, such as a 2015 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that found, LNG reduces carbon emissions by replacing coal.
A study on LNG lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions published in July by energy analysts ICF International found that using coal instead of U.S. LNG would increase emissions by 47.7% to 85.9%.
The study found that the liquefaction process increases greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 11% compared to domestic use of natural gas. But this is still lower than emissions from Russian pipeline gas and domestic coal.
“Compared to coal, Howarth completely lacks credibility when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Basic peer review has called into question all of his past research, but he persists because he has received funding from anti-oil and gas groups and foundations,” Sgama said.
His latest paper was funded in part by the Parker Foundation, an anti-fossil fuel nonprofit.
Global consultancy Berkeley Research Group published a study this year on lifestyle emissions from U.S. LNG versus competing fuels and found: U.S. LNG exports to Europe and Asia are 50 to 55 percent less greenhouse gas intensive than the coal they replace.
A 2019 study by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory also found similar results.
Research into policy
Energy analyst David Blackmon, in his “Energy Absurdity” substack, tell Just news Qatar and Russia are now ready to meet European demand due to LNG policy and the uncertainty it creates for European importers of U.S. LNG.
Construction of the LNG export terminal was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but the Energy Department grants export licenses to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the United States, including European countries.
While the suspension will not affect construction permits, the terminal cannot make a profit without an export permit. Blackmon said these multi-billion dollar investments have become less attractive to investors because of the LNG pause.
Blackmon said the presidential election will determine whether these projects get the regulatory certainty they need to move forward.
“If Kamala Harris wins the White House in January, this baseless campaign to attack natural gas will only intensify. So, we are living in a very dangerous time now,” Blackmon said.
Tim Stewart, President of the American Oil and Gas Association Just news Howarth's research follows a pattern in the energy debate that exists in everything from gas furnaces to liquefied natural gas exports.
“Big Green used agency groups to conduct a fundamentally flawed 'study' and then distributed it to both friendly media and regulatory peers,” he said.
“These studies ended up on the front page of the journal new york times It was then amplified in the echo chamber over the next few hours. It doesn’t matter whether the studies were peer-reviewed. The important thing is to have a story” Stewart added.
Read more news
