Recent Cornell Research Indicates LNG Has Greater Climate Impact Than Coal
Following the destructive effects of Hurricane Helene in the U.S. Southeast, and amid increasing demands for urgent action against fossil fuels causing climate issues, a highly anticipated study was released on Thursday. It shows that emissions from liquefied natural gas (LNG) have a more detrimental impact on the climate than those from coal.
Cornell University’s researcher, Robert Howarth, pointed out, “Since the prohibition on LNG exports was lifted in 2016, exports of LNG from the United States have soared, establishing the U.S. as the largest LNG exporter globally.”
According to Howarth’s analysis, “LNG’s greenhouse gas impact is 33% higher than coal when considering its global warming potential over 20 years, and even when assessed over a century—a timeline that significantly downplays the immediate climate damage caused by methane—LNG’s impact is on par with or worse than coal.”
This publication, which has been eagerly awaited by proponents of aggressive climate measures, was described by Bill McKibben, founder of Third Act, as a “vital document.”
“LNG exports pose ENORMOUS risks to our planet and climate—and we must oppose any efforts to increase them!”
Released by the Energy Science & Engineering journal, this study emerges as U.S. President Joe Biden has halted approvals for LNG exports to countries outside of fair trade agreements. This pause comes one month before the presidential election, where Democratic Vice President Kalama Harris competes against Big Oil-supported Republican and former President Donald Trump.
Jamie Henn, Fossil Free Media’s executive director and co-founder of 350.org, emphasized, “This is a BIG deal for the ongoing review of LNG exports by the Biden administration,” while sharing Howarth’s findings online. Climate activists are urging the Biden-Harris administration to make this pause permanent.
“This should dispel the misleading claim that LNG is a climate solution,” Henn stated. “This peer-reviewed study shows that LNG is actually worse for the climate than coal, not to mention clean energy alternatives. Approving more LNG exports clearly does not serve the public interest.”
As acknowledged by Henn and others, Howarth’s research has faced criticism from journalists and the fossil fuel sector.
“This research has been extensively debated, amended, and has now been peer-reviewed and published,” stated Jason Rylander, legal director for the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “LNG is not a transitional fuel to cleaner energy. It is a direct route to climatic disaster.”
Alex Walker, climate finance program manager at the Canadian organization Environmental Defense, also highlighted in response to the research that contrary to claims by the fossil fuel industry and political advocates, “LNG is not a bridge fuel.”
Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) expressed via social media, “There is no environmental justification for increased U.S. LNG exports.”
Howarth serves on the board of directors for Food & Water Watch, which also emphasized the study as further evidence that “LNG exports present ENORMOUS risks to our planet and climate—and we must reject any expansion attempts!”
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media, made a clear statement on Thursday: “The science is unequivocal.”
“There’s no role for LNG in a sustainable energy future,” DiPaola declared. “It’s time to fully commit to genuinely clean alternatives like wind, solar, and energy efficiency.”
Similar Posts
- Report: Choosing LNG Over Renewables Risks Economy and National Security
- Slash Oil Subsidies, Tax the Rich to Unlock $5 Trillion Annually for Climate Action: Study
- LA Engulfed by Apocalyptic Fires: Climate Activists Blame Big Oil!
- Trump Gets Schooled on German Energy Policy – And They Don’t Eat Pets Either!
- Outrage as Climate Finance Fails at COP29’s Critical Final Hours!
An economic reporter, Dax Everly breaks down financial trends and their impact on Americans’ daily lives.