I can't begin to describe how refreshing it is to read an article that states the simple facts. Thank you! "These things are true, and here's why. These things are not true and here's why."
I took a journalism course years ago; two goals were paramount: truth and objectivity. They've been the gold standard in reporting since people first began writing about what's going on. Bob Woodward, referring to the articles he co-wrote with Carl Bernstein about Watergate, once said that no series of articles in history had received as much scrutiny as theirs, and the conclusion was that except for a very few minor and inconsequential errors, their writing was found to be factual.
What a tragedy that we must resort to discussing the "good old days" regarding factual and objective reporting. I'm so grateful we still have at least one excellent source of information that has not sold her soul to a corporate agenda. So again, thank you!
Thanks so much for this additional context/nuance! Per usual, we are asked to hold multiple truths at once; I feel tremendous gratitude for the activists who made this happen (shout out Roishetta Ozane and the Vessel Project of Louisiana!) - and - there's a lot to be skeptical of, and so much work still to be done.
Leakage is a huge problem for straight "natural" gas (methane) wiping out most if not all of its climate advantage over domestic coal. LNG is even worse. Not only are there more opportunities for leakage, but the LNG process is very energy intensive. You have to chill the methane down to near zero to liquify it for shipping, then power the ship, and keep the LNG super cold during the transit, then return it to gas form. Robert Howarth in a recent study of the whole range of efficient and normal ways of creating and managing and shipping LNG, concludes that "Total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 27% to 2‐fold greater for the average cruise distance of LNG tanker. https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf
Thank you for this! I mentioned the pause to my students but mistakenly said it was for construction, not permits. Now I know. I noticed one thing, where you said LNG emits more than NG because of leaks, but NG has always been leaky, so that may be a misconception: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.html
"Drill baby drill" is probably the best mantra to combat ailing prosperity. And creating exports of raw materials is a good way to offset the massive import levels we have.
Being energy independent is a worthy goal.
Pollution should always be at the top of the list when choosing energy solutions and NG is a great step up from coal.
Our problem is our definition of pollution! The old definition centered around adding substances that had negative effects on human or animal life. I have not seen anyone die from CO2 or methane poisoning as they occur in nature and are needed for the survival of all living things… but now we have a new definition that states that any impact we have on the planetary environment is bad…. Question is how much? and is it an emergency? And should any mitigation get in the way of growth and prosperity?
So far on all metrics we see no issues that we should be concerned about, outside of climate models that continue to be proved wrong with reality, but has done a great job of building an image of a false panic that has created a climate emergency group-think.
I mean, as cynical as it sounds, I thought it was too good to be true, or rather, as good as some on the left would make it seem, based on the Biden administration's track record heretofore.
Great debunking of Republican myths about this, and covering this decision in depth! I do think it is more useful to look at this from a political lens and not just a energy/climate policy one.
I have a couple of thoughts though. I do think this is a smart political decision by Biden because like mentioned, gas exports to Europe have already largely been approved and this decision doesn't affect that. So he gets to have it both ways, get demanded gas to Europe and get a pause for political purposes, or even genuine thinking the DOE should just not rubber stamp these projects without some sort of updated climate science, because I do think Biden takes climate seriously.
But to me it doesn't resolve the central debate about gas exports and their role in the clean energy transition. And those in the climate movement, who are against gas exports, also ironically get to have it both ways because of Biden's decision. They get to say they got a win against fossil fuels, while also not having to be responsible for questions of what happens if Europe doesn't get gas. I think that is interesting to think about.
And the way I read that second tweet by Stephen, where he says "will require more gas", I think reflects the thinking of energy experts here. These countries are demanding more and more gas regardless of Nature articles like the one linked. And I believe it is better for the US to supply than other countries. I do not want Russia or Qatar supplying them both because of energy security reasons (particularly Russia and ending its revenue stream to fund the war in Ukraine), but also because I can do work on limiting leaks in the domestic LNG export supply chain. I can't do anything about Qatar and their leaks.
And I hate to harp on this, but I think it is important. But say the DoE review of its permit process is genuinely rigorous and fully adheres to the best climate science available, and it basically concludes, "rubber stamping is wrong, but taking into account climate, economic, and energy security considerations, most export terminals should be approved", what then? I don't like to say it but at this point I need an assurance from some in the climate movement, that they will respect the best judgements of the experts here.
And nothing nefarious about it, but I do have a concern of being so opposed to even the appearance of giving approval to fossil fuels, we end up enabling the current energy status quo, which obviously only helps fossil fuels.
My second thought is that I have a concern of a sort of mismatch in coverage of these topics, in say the way Willow was covered by the press vs this pause. Covering these issues without political spin is awesome and your coverage here is excellent, but to this day in climate articles from everywhere, something like the Willow decision is still being contrasted with the IRA, when from an emissions perspective they aren't remotely similar. And I do think that is a problem for the climate movement, not just getting Democrats elected. I don't know if you have read this piece by Robinson Meyer, but it sums up a lot of my thinking.
"Under Biden, Congress has passed the most aggressive climate legislation in U.S. history — not only in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its tax incentives for clean energy, but also the bipartisan infrastructure law, which directed hundreds of billions to public transit and next-generation energy research. Yet instead of celebrating that victory, many climate-concerned young voters — or at least the environmentalist groups that purport to speak for them — spent much of 2023 fixated on the president’s approval of the Willow pipeline. While I’ve never seen a scientific sample, it’s pretty clear that the negative news about Willow broke through among young voters to a far greater extent than the positive news about the IRA, even though the IRA will reduce greenhouse gas emissions far more than the Willow pipeline will increase them.
With the LNG pause, the Biden administration has avoided another Willow “betrayal”-style story among the youngs. But it may also have invited negative coverage from other factions of the press — including business and energy analysts who doubt Howarth’s analyses and remain more equivocal about LNG. This is why this moment is such a test for climate activists: If they cannot generate a positive news cycle for the president at this moment — or rather, if they can’t convince young people that Biden has done something good on climate change — then their utility in the coalition will come into question."
Sorry for the long comment but your coverage of this has been really important to me and invaluable. I think the LNG export issue covers so much of the current climate discussion; the direction of the climate movement, the clean energy transition, this 2024 election etc. It really is a huge issue, and I truly appreciate how many articles HEATED has devoted to it.
I appreciate your considered and considerate approach to discussing the many facets of this complex topic, something that is very much in need at this point of the process. Point well taken about the many assets created by the IRA that so many seem to not be motivated by because it involves complexities and dives into bureaucracies that are much less sexy than opposing pipelines. I personally don't see that it is an either-or proposition, however; we all do whatever we can, and I would love to hear your ideas on how to make the many incentives contained in the IRA become a rallying cry that organizations, state legislators and the like can get behind and use as the transformative tools that they represent more fully and productively.
I also never heard back from you that you had any evidence that China and other asian energy markets would not prefer to build their own gas distribution pipelines over purchasing LNG from US terminals, which as Emily pointed out are fraught with the high energy inputs required to extract them as well as the unavoidable emissions that occur while shipping them. Should we not actually encourage fossil fuel moneys to invest in Chinese and other asian methane beds and expand renewables/energy efficiency as a way to reduce coal use in those countries and avoid these emissions that are part and parcel of extracting and shipping it halfway around the world? Don't you think the Chinese would have the same reluctance in becoming dependent on US LNG as Europe is now experiencing due to their dependence on Russian exports?
Biden is probably doing the potential investors a favor. It's unlikely LNG demand will grow as fast as shown in that Rystad chart. IF solar deployment growth continues apace, and offshore wind ramps up in Asia as is starting, those projections will not be met.
Thank you for diving into the details. I feel I have a better understanding of the decision.
Yay!! That's all I want!!
I can't begin to describe how refreshing it is to read an article that states the simple facts. Thank you! "These things are true, and here's why. These things are not true and here's why."
I took a journalism course years ago; two goals were paramount: truth and objectivity. They've been the gold standard in reporting since people first began writing about what's going on. Bob Woodward, referring to the articles he co-wrote with Carl Bernstein about Watergate, once said that no series of articles in history had received as much scrutiny as theirs, and the conclusion was that except for a very few minor and inconsequential errors, their writing was found to be factual.
What a tragedy that we must resort to discussing the "good old days" regarding factual and objective reporting. I'm so grateful we still have at least one excellent source of information that has not sold her soul to a corporate agenda. So again, thank you!
Great deep exploration of the misinformation on both sides.
Now as readers, let's amplify this fantastic work!
thank you, Emily. This is an excellent piece, high-quality journalism.
Perspective is an important thing--thank you for providing it!
Thanks so much for this additional context/nuance! Per usual, we are asked to hold multiple truths at once; I feel tremendous gratitude for the activists who made this happen (shout out Roishetta Ozane and the Vessel Project of Louisiana!) - and - there's a lot to be skeptical of, and so much work still to be done.
Thanks Emily.
Leakage is a huge problem for straight "natural" gas (methane) wiping out most if not all of its climate advantage over domestic coal. LNG is even worse. Not only are there more opportunities for leakage, but the LNG process is very energy intensive. You have to chill the methane down to near zero to liquify it for shipping, then power the ship, and keep the LNG super cold during the transit, then return it to gas form. Robert Howarth in a recent study of the whole range of efficient and normal ways of creating and managing and shipping LNG, concludes that "Total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 27% to 2‐fold greater for the average cruise distance of LNG tanker. https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf
Thank you for this! I mentioned the pause to my students but mistakenly said it was for construction, not permits. Now I know. I noticed one thing, where you said LNG emits more than NG because of leaks, but NG has always been leaky, so that may be a misconception: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-leaks.html
"Drill baby drill" is probably the best mantra to combat ailing prosperity. And creating exports of raw materials is a good way to offset the massive import levels we have.
Being energy independent is a worthy goal.
Pollution should always be at the top of the list when choosing energy solutions and NG is a great step up from coal.
Our problem is our definition of pollution! The old definition centered around adding substances that had negative effects on human or animal life. I have not seen anyone die from CO2 or methane poisoning as they occur in nature and are needed for the survival of all living things… but now we have a new definition that states that any impact we have on the planetary environment is bad…. Question is how much? and is it an emergency? And should any mitigation get in the way of growth and prosperity?
So far on all metrics we see no issues that we should be concerned about, outside of climate models that continue to be proved wrong with reality, but has done a great job of building an image of a false panic that has created a climate emergency group-think.
So… the conclusion…"Drill baby drill"
I mean, as cynical as it sounds, I thought it was too good to be true, or rather, as good as some on the left would make it seem, based on the Biden administration's track record heretofore.
Great debunking of Republican myths about this, and covering this decision in depth! I do think it is more useful to look at this from a political lens and not just a energy/climate policy one.
I have a couple of thoughts though. I do think this is a smart political decision by Biden because like mentioned, gas exports to Europe have already largely been approved and this decision doesn't affect that. So he gets to have it both ways, get demanded gas to Europe and get a pause for political purposes, or even genuine thinking the DOE should just not rubber stamp these projects without some sort of updated climate science, because I do think Biden takes climate seriously.
But to me it doesn't resolve the central debate about gas exports and their role in the clean energy transition. And those in the climate movement, who are against gas exports, also ironically get to have it both ways because of Biden's decision. They get to say they got a win against fossil fuels, while also not having to be responsible for questions of what happens if Europe doesn't get gas. I think that is interesting to think about.
And the way I read that second tweet by Stephen, where he says "will require more gas", I think reflects the thinking of energy experts here. These countries are demanding more and more gas regardless of Nature articles like the one linked. And I believe it is better for the US to supply than other countries. I do not want Russia or Qatar supplying them both because of energy security reasons (particularly Russia and ending its revenue stream to fund the war in Ukraine), but also because I can do work on limiting leaks in the domestic LNG export supply chain. I can't do anything about Qatar and their leaks.
And I hate to harp on this, but I think it is important. But say the DoE review of its permit process is genuinely rigorous and fully adheres to the best climate science available, and it basically concludes, "rubber stamping is wrong, but taking into account climate, economic, and energy security considerations, most export terminals should be approved", what then? I don't like to say it but at this point I need an assurance from some in the climate movement, that they will respect the best judgements of the experts here.
And nothing nefarious about it, but I do have a concern of being so opposed to even the appearance of giving approval to fossil fuels, we end up enabling the current energy status quo, which obviously only helps fossil fuels.
My second thought is that I have a concern of a sort of mismatch in coverage of these topics, in say the way Willow was covered by the press vs this pause. Covering these issues without political spin is awesome and your coverage here is excellent, but to this day in climate articles from everywhere, something like the Willow decision is still being contrasted with the IRA, when from an emissions perspective they aren't remotely similar. And I do think that is a problem for the climate movement, not just getting Democrats elected. I don't know if you have read this piece by Robinson Meyer, but it sums up a lot of my thinking.
"Under Biden, Congress has passed the most aggressive climate legislation in U.S. history — not only in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its tax incentives for clean energy, but also the bipartisan infrastructure law, which directed hundreds of billions to public transit and next-generation energy research. Yet instead of celebrating that victory, many climate-concerned young voters — or at least the environmentalist groups that purport to speak for them — spent much of 2023 fixated on the president’s approval of the Willow pipeline. While I’ve never seen a scientific sample, it’s pretty clear that the negative news about Willow broke through among young voters to a far greater extent than the positive news about the IRA, even though the IRA will reduce greenhouse gas emissions far more than the Willow pipeline will increase them.
With the LNG pause, the Biden administration has avoided another Willow “betrayal”-style story among the youngs. But it may also have invited negative coverage from other factions of the press — including business and energy analysts who doubt Howarth’s analyses and remain more equivocal about LNG. This is why this moment is such a test for climate activists: If they cannot generate a positive news cycle for the president at this moment — or rather, if they can’t convince young people that Biden has done something good on climate change — then their utility in the coalition will come into question."
https://heatmap.news/politics/biden-lng-exports-pause-young-voters-climate
Sorry for the long comment but your coverage of this has been really important to me and invaluable. I think the LNG export issue covers so much of the current climate discussion; the direction of the climate movement, the clean energy transition, this 2024 election etc. It really is a huge issue, and I truly appreciate how many articles HEATED has devoted to it.
I appreciate your considered and considerate approach to discussing the many facets of this complex topic, something that is very much in need at this point of the process. Point well taken about the many assets created by the IRA that so many seem to not be motivated by because it involves complexities and dives into bureaucracies that are much less sexy than opposing pipelines. I personally don't see that it is an either-or proposition, however; we all do whatever we can, and I would love to hear your ideas on how to make the many incentives contained in the IRA become a rallying cry that organizations, state legislators and the like can get behind and use as the transformative tools that they represent more fully and productively.
I also never heard back from you that you had any evidence that China and other asian energy markets would not prefer to build their own gas distribution pipelines over purchasing LNG from US terminals, which as Emily pointed out are fraught with the high energy inputs required to extract them as well as the unavoidable emissions that occur while shipping them. Should we not actually encourage fossil fuel moneys to invest in Chinese and other asian methane beds and expand renewables/energy efficiency as a way to reduce coal use in those countries and avoid these emissions that are part and parcel of extracting and shipping it halfway around the world? Don't you think the Chinese would have the same reluctance in becoming dependent on US LNG as Europe is now experiencing due to their dependence on Russian exports?
Biden is probably doing the potential investors a favor. It's unlikely LNG demand will grow as fast as shown in that Rystad chart. IF solar deployment growth continues apace, and offshore wind ramps up in Asia as is starting, those projections will not be met.
E.g. even Bangladesh. https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/gob-approves-development-of-bangladeshs-first-offshore-wind-project-301979886.html
A group of important EU countries has promised to end gas use for electricity generation by 2035 and is moving more quickly than the US towards that.
And Across Europe, nearly 3 million heat pumps were sold in 2022, an increase of almost 40% compared with the previous year. And so on...
Replace and Displace.