The conflict between fossil fuel operators and corporations and those working for a safe climate has recently coalesced around natural gas, which was once considered a more climate-friendly option to coal. Although burning natural gas releases about 50% the amount of carbon dioxide as burning coal, methane leaks during recovery, transport, and storage of natural gas make natural gas’s contribution to climate change just as bad as coal.
The primary component of natural gas, methane (CH4), is released into the atmosphere at all stages of the oil and gas recovery process. Methane matters because as a greenhouse gas, it is four times as potent as carbon dioxide. It is currently responsible for about 40% of global warming. But the good news is that methane has a shorter residence time in the atmosphere, which means efforts to reduce methane emissions can make a big difference in climate change relatively quickly.
At issue right now is whether to build liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals. At an LNG terminal, natural gas is cooled and compressed into a liquid, then loaded onto ships for export. Right now the US exports significant amounts of LNG to Europe, because they are no longer importing natural gas from Russia in response to the Ukraine invasion.
Seven LNG facilities have been built in the US in the last seven years and two dozen more are in planning and development stages along the Gulf Coast. The US is currently the top exporter of LNG, ahead of Middle Eastern nation Qatar. Some say constructing new LNG terminals in the US is good for jobs, especially in economically disadvantaged parts of South Louisiana. But locals have complained that the facilities lead to air pollution and a constant threat of explosions and dangerous accidents, especially in storms which is a major concern along the Gulf coast.
Climate advocates argue that new LNG facilities are a step in the wrong direction, and will commit the US to decades of growth in fossil fuel operations and associated emissions. A recent study found that over its entire lifetime, from recovery to burning, natural gas exported from the US to Europe produces 24% more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. The study reports that “if all [LNG facilities] are built, they will be associated with an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.”
Much of the natural gas exported to Europe from the US is recovered by fracking, a process which has led to contamination of groundwater and even clusters of earthquakes in some places.
Permits for new LNG terminals are issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC recently approved a second stage for an LNG facility in Jefferson County, Texas. The Department of Energy (DOE) is also involved with permitting LNG facilities because they issue licenses for export of the fuel.
Right now, DOE uses outdated guidelines which say that burning natural gas is better for the climate than burning coal, therefore exporting LNG to replace coal with natural gas in Europe is in the public interest. But new understanding of the climate consequences of methane leaks over the whole process of natural gas extraction, processing, and transport mean the practice is not in the public interest. This research suggests new guidelines may be required, but the political pressure to continue natural gas exports is a challenge.
Even as some in the US seek to expand the use of fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency released a report last month which projects that renewable energy (wind, solar, and others) will make up 50% of the global energy mix by 2030 as opposed to 30% today, even with no changes in current energy policy. This is good news. But, the IEA says, even that remarkable progress is not enough if we are to keep global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve that, the agency recommends tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling energy efficiency, slashing methane emissions, and phasing out the use of fossil fuels.
Scaling up US exports of LNG is in opposition to those IEA recommendations for climate. This is in addition to the reality that demand for imported LNG is decreasing now and is projected to continue decreasing as Europe scales up renewables.
The debate about LNG terminals is currently overshadowed by the situation in the US House of Representatives, which continues to struggle to pass appropriations bills to fund the federal government for the next fiscal year. This too has climate implications. Details about riders attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior show an attempt to roll back many recent gains in the fight against climate change. Among other things, the bill would reduce EPA funding by nearly 40% and would open up new areas for oil and gas exploration and hard rock mining. It would also weaken several provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act designed to improve energy efficiency and promote the development of renewable forms of energy.
The Congressional fight over Administration climate priorities weakens the US position as a global leader when it comes to the upcoming UN climate negotiations (COP28). US delegates to COP28 cannot make commitments about emissions reductions, climate finance, or other measures without confidence they will be supported through appropriations in Congress.
The confluence of shifting energy needs due to ongoing wars, transition to renewables in Europe reported by the IEA, the upcoming COP28, the US fossil fuel industry’s determination to continue to produce and export LNG, and their stubborn influence of fossil fuel interests among some parts of our state and federal legislatures makes for a challenging landscape for those of us working for a safe climate.
The moment we are in feels like an epic struggle between a future and the past. As people of faith, we are familiar with the idea of simultaneously living in a world that is not as it should be and waiting and hoping and praying for a hopeful future to come. Faithful advocacy for a safe climate is more important now than ever.
