It almost seems too predictable to even mention at this point, but it turns out the rationale used by the Biden-Harris White House and Energy Department to justify its year-long “pause” in liquefied natural gas (LNG) permitting was based on questionable science.
Oh.
When it was implemented last January, supporters of the pause cited a draft study conducted by a long-time anti-natural-gas activist, Prof. Robert Howarth at Cornell University, as the scientific basis as justification. The pre-print of Howarth’s study claimed that life-cycle emissions caused by the LNG value chain comes to somewhere between 24% to a whopping 274% greater than coal. Critics of the move said at the time that the claim, especially its upper extent, was too preposterous to take seriously, but the Biden-Harris administration, as always eager to please climate alarmist campaign funders, leapt into action.
Last week, nine months into this absurd permitting pause, Howarth at long last released his final study with highly modified findings. The final version of the study now claims LNG emissions to be 33% higher than that of coal and makes no mention of a range. While even 33% seems specious given the disparate emissions profiles of natural gas vs. coal, it is a fraction of the professor’s original alarmist upper range.
Howarth, who serves on the board of directors of the anti-natural gas conflict group Food and Water Watch, defended his final study by saying that, “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.”
But though Howarth defends himself as a credible researcher, he has been unabashed about his anti-natural gas activism. In a February interview, for example, he told Bloomberg, “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.” Obviously, one effective way to “get rid of the gas system” is to convince sympathetic regulators to just stop issuing permits.
But competing studies on the topic conflict with Howarth’s findings. One study published by ICF International in July finds that using U.S. LNG to displace coal cuts emissions by 48% to 86%. Another similar study by the Berkeley Research Group finds that displacing Asian coal with U.S. LNG cuts emissions by 50% to 55%.
One of the Howarth study’s chief critics, Jonah Messinger at the Breakthrough Institute, identified a number of issues with Howarth’s methodology in an analysis he published in July (“A Major Paper on Liquified Natural Gas Emissions Is Riddled with Errors,” July 30, 2024).
When asked to comment on the final study, Messinger said many of his original criticisms remain unaddressed.
Messinger’s research led Republicans in both the House and the Senate to open an inquiry into the matter. In September, a group of them sent a bicameral letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who has publicly supported the pause on numerous occasions. Among other questions, the letter asks Granholm if she personally directed Howarth’s study and whether DOE relied on that study’s pre-draft as the rationale for invoking the permitting pause. It also requests DOE brief Congress on the progress of the public interest analysis it is supposed to be conducting into the comparative emissions question.
Thus far, the letter has gone unanswered. Again, unsurprising.
When asked for comment, Tim Stewart, President at the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, said, “Opponents of clean American LNG have a bit of a racket going here. Foundations funded by liberal billionaires pay for a study. The study gets published by the New York Times and amplified by the rest of the media. Friendly federal officials use the media drumbeat to justify a policy action, all while claiming it is based on ‘science.’ Any researchers who come to differing conclusions are simply ignored. This is not how public policy should work.”
Justified or not, there is no question this permitting pause has damaged the U.S. LNG industry’s competitive position in the global market and will make it much harder to secure the billions of dollars in funding needed to mount future export projects.
Whether that was the administration’s intent, the outcome is undeniable.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN)
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
