As Biden faces the biggest climate decision of his term, he's hearing "concerns" from one of his closest advisors—who happens to be a former gas executive.
I don't like anyone's ties to fossil fuels, but according to that Washington Post article it seems like this guy does understand energy markets really well, and that is why Biden respects him. Maybe this is just a difference of faith, but I do believe Biden has good advisors around him and he understands the climate implications of decisions like this. And while this advisor might have a more pro-gas view, Biden is taking that into account so like you mentioned it seems to be where to draw the line in making changes to the process.
Also I do want to say that any energy decision should be based on the most up to date information possible so I don't have any issue with a slight pause to get the best information on the true climate impact.
But I think I still have the same issue as I mentioned last week plus one more. For the latter one, I just don't agree with representing US fossil fuel exports, especially as it relates to gas to Europe as it is in this case, as going against US climate goals. Europe is demanding the gas so they should be responsible for the emissions from it.
The second issue still relates to I believe this overreliance on Howarth, when the facts aren't clear yet, when a portion of that overreliance is because I think he says what a lot of those in the climate movement want to hear, which I think is a problem in accurately assessing whether or not his claims are true. Not to belabor that point, but Mark Z Jacobson was a big thing until he wasn't.
And to expand what I said last week, what I really have a problem with is people like Bill McKibben in a sense not having the courage of their convictions. If someone like McKibben truly believes Howarth's claims, then I feel it is his responsibility to address the conflict with the IPCC net-zero pathway scenarios, which are based entirely around eliminating coal ASAP. He should have an answer to if what he wants comes to pass, blocking of these export terminals, what happens when Europe buys gas from Qatar leading to countries like Bangladesh burning 3x as much coal.
And if McKibben is wrong and Howarth's claims are wrong? I believe these terminals will happen, but them saying "oops we endorsed a path that not only was incorrect but led to massive coal burning sorry", is just not good enough for me after the fact.
I fully understand what my "pro gas export" position means, I can do the climate math as well as anyone, which is why I think me stating it at the outset while someone like McKibben doesn't, is unfair. Which is what it is.
Just my thoughts and none of it means I think you are in any way doing your accountability journalism wrong, and I in fact am grateful for articles like this.
One of my biggest concerns with the massive buildup of LNG exporting facilities that I'd love to hear your opinion on is ROI. These terminals and processing facilities not only come with a huge price tag, they are attached to a whole expanded fleet of shipping infrastructure, all of which must make a return on their substantial investments. One of the main excuses for continuing to use coal fired powered plants, especially after they have been upgraded to meet stricter pollution standards, is that they must continue to operate in order to get their return on their investments, which in the case of public utilities, are even baked into the rate structure.
So I see one of the main considerations being: what kind of financial momentum are we creating by greenlighting this structure with the ostensible purpose of providing a transitional energy supply to Europe? What happens when they meet their energy needs with a buildup of conservation and renewables and say "thanks, we're done?" I'm a little skeptical whether our LNG can just go around the world with the purpose of shuttering coal fired plants around the world in a way that allows us to squint at the effect of extending the fossil fuel emissions tail further out than other paths would, all for the sake of ROI. Just saying....
To start I think it is necessary to differentiate between different types of fossil fuel infrastructure. In the case of a fully completed fossil fuel plant, yes that does have an incentive to keep burning fossil fuels, because the capital costs are already made so only operating costs matter, and the investors or whoever want the greatest return.
I just don't view something like an export terminal that way which relies on entirely different countries purchasing decisions. If another country stops buying the gas, there really is no pressure the terminal owners can exert.
So in the case of someplace like Europe building up renewables and not needing the gas, either that gas goes somewhere else, which I think is still useful in eliminating coal for energy and in pushing out Russian gas, which has its own benefits, like less money for their war in Ukraine, or the terminal becomes a stranded asset. Which is fine.
Because the second part of my thinking is that fossil fuel companies obviously don't want to solve the climate crisis so one of the best things they could do with their money is dig holes and fill them. Stranded assets are essentially that. If fossil fuel companies spend billions building an export terminal that loses billions because it isn't needed, that is better than spending on extraction or fossil fuel plants or lobbyists, in my view.
I see the theoretical comparative advantage of investing your assets in a stranded asset that cannot emit greenhouse gas emissions if abandoned, but that advantage is pretty marginal, if not entirely delusional, IMHO. Stranded coal deposits, if not dug up, cannot emit either, but refilling an abandoned terminal with LNG again is a lot easier and quicker to do than mining and shipping off that coal bed. I don't think that the bean counters owning that LNG terminal made their decision on your logic: they want a return on their investment and will beat new pathways to anywhere in the world to do that. I would much rather support replacing those Chinese, South African and other coal mines with truly renewable, fossil fuel emission-free energy sources, not with "fossil fuel lite" LNG temptations, which, by the way, require the receiving country to build their terminals and pipelines as well, which, like the shipping countries, need to have their own ROI, extending the life of those receiving ports well beyond what Net Zero strategies require.
If China wants to replace their coal with renewables and doesn't buy gas, I don't see what some company in the US can do to influence an entire country like China otherwise.
Point well taken and I don't know the methane deposit situation in China well enough to know if they would be more inclined to develop their own methane beds or build terminals to import ours or whether either can replace the cheap coal beds or whether they want to use other alternatives. Lots of questions and very few answers. At least a few of those outcomes could mean that LNG ports in the US shouldn't count on China. I'm interested if you know otherwise.
This article is a good summary of the contemporary debates around LNG. As someone who has done academic research on this subject looking at limits to global demand, emissions associated with the LNG supply chain, and regulatory actions to address methane emissions, I have a unique perspective on this issue that's perhaps counter to popular rhetoric.
1) Considering the climate impacts of LNG exports is important and I come down on the side of more rather than less scrutiny. That said, most of the simplistic analyzes that gets headlines or quoted in news articles are just wrong. The question isn't, "how much CO2 will an LNG project emit over its lifetime". The question that needs to be answered is this, "if not US LNG, how is the importing country going to meet energy demand. i.e., what is the counterfactual scenario without LNG?". The latter is a much harder question to answer, and will determine whether any individual project has CO2 reduction benefits. For example, much of US LNG exported to China is used to replace coal in district heating, which probably reduces emissions against a counterfactual where China continues burning coal. However, this argument is not valid for all countries that import US LNG. So, more scrutiny is welcome.
2) As another commenter pointed out, I strongly disagree with Howarth's claims (have you noticed how his papers are almost always single authored?) and there good scientific reasons why his analysis is not representative. For example, his recent paper that got a lot of headlines around LNG was mainly about LNG shipping. In equivalent terms, it's like stating how bad it would be if everyone bought rolling coal trucks. Are rolling coal trucks bad? Of course. Are we going to see billions of rolling coal trucks in the near future? No. That's essentially what Howarth did when he assume that the worst LNG ships are the standard. It's not. This is but one of many examples where the scientific community has strong disagreements with Howarth et al., not unlike Jacobson and his team.
3) LNG exports is one area where you have to think about genuine national security implications (I am not an expert on this). The way I see it is that LNG exports should become the only reason to produce gas - and we need to get the as fast as possible. We have to reduce domestic consumption, so that any gas-related infrastructure such as LNG is evaluated from the perspective of whether it helps reduce global carbon emissions (related to my point #1 about counterfactuals).
4) Whether a specific project is given the green light or not, we need to keep an eye on two key issues - reducing methane leaks and reducing demand. Personally, I have chosen to focus on these issues rather than play whack-a-mole with individual projects as I believe trends in long-term demand are much more consequential for emissions than any single LNG terminal. But that's a personal choice, and others might come to a different conclusion.
Given the fact these mega methane ports are located on the coast, I hope that someone is at least looking at the effects of climate change on their location - make sure they're well above the rising seas...
This makes me sick. Biden has been all talk, no action on climate. Does he not have advisors that aren't former fossil fuels executives or lobbyists? This pains me. I am very worried for my grandchildren and future generations. As older Americans we need to stand up, demonstrate and not allow politicians to be the environmental stewards. We need Native Alaskan, Kanaka Maoli and Native Americans to be the stewards. These people have nurtured the earth. Believe we have to malama the aina It is what gives and provides us life They understand the importance of water. Wai is life. The natural springs, lakes, aquifers and water ways. Enough of these idiots who are only doing favors for their friends in these industries. Stand up, cry out, protest in any way you are able.
Thank you for this article.
I don't like anyone's ties to fossil fuels, but according to that Washington Post article it seems like this guy does understand energy markets really well, and that is why Biden respects him. Maybe this is just a difference of faith, but I do believe Biden has good advisors around him and he understands the climate implications of decisions like this. And while this advisor might have a more pro-gas view, Biden is taking that into account so like you mentioned it seems to be where to draw the line in making changes to the process.
Also I do want to say that any energy decision should be based on the most up to date information possible so I don't have any issue with a slight pause to get the best information on the true climate impact.
But I think I still have the same issue as I mentioned last week plus one more. For the latter one, I just don't agree with representing US fossil fuel exports, especially as it relates to gas to Europe as it is in this case, as going against US climate goals. Europe is demanding the gas so they should be responsible for the emissions from it.
The second issue still relates to I believe this overreliance on Howarth, when the facts aren't clear yet, when a portion of that overreliance is because I think he says what a lot of those in the climate movement want to hear, which I think is a problem in accurately assessing whether or not his claims are true. Not to belabor that point, but Mark Z Jacobson was a big thing until he wasn't.
And to expand what I said last week, what I really have a problem with is people like Bill McKibben in a sense not having the courage of their convictions. If someone like McKibben truly believes Howarth's claims, then I feel it is his responsibility to address the conflict with the IPCC net-zero pathway scenarios, which are based entirely around eliminating coal ASAP. He should have an answer to if what he wants comes to pass, blocking of these export terminals, what happens when Europe buys gas from Qatar leading to countries like Bangladesh burning 3x as much coal.
And if McKibben is wrong and Howarth's claims are wrong? I believe these terminals will happen, but them saying "oops we endorsed a path that not only was incorrect but led to massive coal burning sorry", is just not good enough for me after the fact.
I fully understand what my "pro gas export" position means, I can do the climate math as well as anyone, which is why I think me stating it at the outset while someone like McKibben doesn't, is unfair. Which is what it is.
Just my thoughts and none of it means I think you are in any way doing your accountability journalism wrong, and I in fact am grateful for articles like this.
Thank you for this! Lots to think about
William,
One of my biggest concerns with the massive buildup of LNG exporting facilities that I'd love to hear your opinion on is ROI. These terminals and processing facilities not only come with a huge price tag, they are attached to a whole expanded fleet of shipping infrastructure, all of which must make a return on their substantial investments. One of the main excuses for continuing to use coal fired powered plants, especially after they have been upgraded to meet stricter pollution standards, is that they must continue to operate in order to get their return on their investments, which in the case of public utilities, are even baked into the rate structure.
So I see one of the main considerations being: what kind of financial momentum are we creating by greenlighting this structure with the ostensible purpose of providing a transitional energy supply to Europe? What happens when they meet their energy needs with a buildup of conservation and renewables and say "thanks, we're done?" I'm a little skeptical whether our LNG can just go around the world with the purpose of shuttering coal fired plants around the world in a way that allows us to squint at the effect of extending the fossil fuel emissions tail further out than other paths would, all for the sake of ROI. Just saying....
Sure! My thinking on that is two fold.
To start I think it is necessary to differentiate between different types of fossil fuel infrastructure. In the case of a fully completed fossil fuel plant, yes that does have an incentive to keep burning fossil fuels, because the capital costs are already made so only operating costs matter, and the investors or whoever want the greatest return.
I just don't view something like an export terminal that way which relies on entirely different countries purchasing decisions. If another country stops buying the gas, there really is no pressure the terminal owners can exert.
So in the case of someplace like Europe building up renewables and not needing the gas, either that gas goes somewhere else, which I think is still useful in eliminating coal for energy and in pushing out Russian gas, which has its own benefits, like less money for their war in Ukraine, or the terminal becomes a stranded asset. Which is fine.
Because the second part of my thinking is that fossil fuel companies obviously don't want to solve the climate crisis so one of the best things they could do with their money is dig holes and fill them. Stranded assets are essentially that. If fossil fuel companies spend billions building an export terminal that loses billions because it isn't needed, that is better than spending on extraction or fossil fuel plants or lobbyists, in my view.
I see the theoretical comparative advantage of investing your assets in a stranded asset that cannot emit greenhouse gas emissions if abandoned, but that advantage is pretty marginal, if not entirely delusional, IMHO. Stranded coal deposits, if not dug up, cannot emit either, but refilling an abandoned terminal with LNG again is a lot easier and quicker to do than mining and shipping off that coal bed. I don't think that the bean counters owning that LNG terminal made their decision on your logic: they want a return on their investment and will beat new pathways to anywhere in the world to do that. I would much rather support replacing those Chinese, South African and other coal mines with truly renewable, fossil fuel emission-free energy sources, not with "fossil fuel lite" LNG temptations, which, by the way, require the receiving country to build their terminals and pipelines as well, which, like the shipping countries, need to have their own ROI, extending the life of those receiving ports well beyond what Net Zero strategies require.
If China wants to replace their coal with renewables and doesn't buy gas, I don't see what some company in the US can do to influence an entire country like China otherwise.
Point well taken and I don't know the methane deposit situation in China well enough to know if they would be more inclined to develop their own methane beds or build terminals to import ours or whether either can replace the cheap coal beds or whether they want to use other alternatives. Lots of questions and very few answers. At least a few of those outcomes could mean that LNG ports in the US shouldn't count on China. I'm interested if you know otherwise.
This article is a good summary of the contemporary debates around LNG. As someone who has done academic research on this subject looking at limits to global demand, emissions associated with the LNG supply chain, and regulatory actions to address methane emissions, I have a unique perspective on this issue that's perhaps counter to popular rhetoric.
1) Considering the climate impacts of LNG exports is important and I come down on the side of more rather than less scrutiny. That said, most of the simplistic analyzes that gets headlines or quoted in news articles are just wrong. The question isn't, "how much CO2 will an LNG project emit over its lifetime". The question that needs to be answered is this, "if not US LNG, how is the importing country going to meet energy demand. i.e., what is the counterfactual scenario without LNG?". The latter is a much harder question to answer, and will determine whether any individual project has CO2 reduction benefits. For example, much of US LNG exported to China is used to replace coal in district heating, which probably reduces emissions against a counterfactual where China continues burning coal. However, this argument is not valid for all countries that import US LNG. So, more scrutiny is welcome.
2) As another commenter pointed out, I strongly disagree with Howarth's claims (have you noticed how his papers are almost always single authored?) and there good scientific reasons why his analysis is not representative. For example, his recent paper that got a lot of headlines around LNG was mainly about LNG shipping. In equivalent terms, it's like stating how bad it would be if everyone bought rolling coal trucks. Are rolling coal trucks bad? Of course. Are we going to see billions of rolling coal trucks in the near future? No. That's essentially what Howarth did when he assume that the worst LNG ships are the standard. It's not. This is but one of many examples where the scientific community has strong disagreements with Howarth et al., not unlike Jacobson and his team.
3) LNG exports is one area where you have to think about genuine national security implications (I am not an expert on this). The way I see it is that LNG exports should become the only reason to produce gas - and we need to get the as fast as possible. We have to reduce domestic consumption, so that any gas-related infrastructure such as LNG is evaluated from the perspective of whether it helps reduce global carbon emissions (related to my point #1 about counterfactuals).
4) Whether a specific project is given the green light or not, we need to keep an eye on two key issues - reducing methane leaks and reducing demand. Personally, I have chosen to focus on these issues rather than play whack-a-mole with individual projects as I believe trends in long-term demand are much more consequential for emissions than any single LNG terminal. But that's a personal choice, and others might come to a different conclusion.
Thank you for your reporting on this subject.
As always, appreciate your work.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
Given the fact these mega methane ports are located on the coast, I hope that someone is at least looking at the effects of climate change on their location - make sure they're well above the rising seas...
Great article! Thank you for keeping us updated on this important issue.
This makes me sick. Biden has been all talk, no action on climate. Does he not have advisors that aren't former fossil fuels executives or lobbyists? This pains me. I am very worried for my grandchildren and future generations. As older Americans we need to stand up, demonstrate and not allow politicians to be the environmental stewards. We need Native Alaskan, Kanaka Maoli and Native Americans to be the stewards. These people have nurtured the earth. Believe we have to malama the aina It is what gives and provides us life They understand the importance of water. Wai is life. The natural springs, lakes, aquifers and water ways. Enough of these idiots who are only doing favors for their friends in these industries. Stand up, cry out, protest in any way you are able.