Howarth and McKibben are spot on. We have much better solutions. This is the business of fossil fuels trying to twist the nose of leadership, again. Save money while saving the planet and blow them and their unsupportable hogwash excuses to delay their demise. Do your homework, and it is obvious. The administration sees it now. Moving on... all the way now to faster ROI and smart power. Free from the sun in short order. Please don’t buy into this pitch to more unsustainable atmospheric and oceanic harm.
2. I think that there is enough information out there to make a decision and that Congress should demand that DOE give them a recommendation in 1 to 2 months.
3. I think the answer depends on how much coal the LNG displaces, https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/howarth-natural-gas. If I understand Zeke's analysis correctly, basically LNG beats coal regardless of assumed reasonable leaks rates for methane in terms of long term warming potential or forcing function.
4. Believing that we are going to drive global coal use to zero in 15 years is not realistic. We will be lucky to drive coal to zero in the U.S. in 15 years.
5. I don't think Howarth and McKibben should be driving the bus.
Natural gas means the continuation of business as usual, but with a slightly different fuel stock. Successfully transitioning means changing the infrastructure and economics so that it only make sense to rely on wind and solar. Will that transition occur because of the invisible hand of the market or by government fiat? Probably a combination of both.
I wholeheartedly agree that building infrastructure that will last 50 - 100 years for LNG smooths the way for it's continued use, but hope that decreasing costs of renewables, along with a society that reforms manufacturing, power generation, and general living preferences to end the use of LNG well before it pushes us well over 2 degrees of warming.
This is an unusually muddled argument. I hardly know where to begin.
"This coal-for-gas substitution has been occurring in the U.S. for the last 20 years and is a primary reason for the decline in U.S. emissions over that period." The substitution has actually been going for 35 years, ever since the US government allowed the use of natural gas for electric generation. It has spread worldwide, wherever natural gas supplies are available. It doesn't take any regulation to make this happen: natural gas is cleaner, easier to use, and cheaper to build than coal. Encouraging more use of natural gas worldwide is the most effective way to reduce emissions in the short term. It won't get to zero emissions, but nothing else will, either.
"But most scenarios for achieving the Paris Agreement’s target of “well below 2°C” have global coal use dropping to near zero in the next 15 years." This seems to assume that the existence of these scenarios means that the scenarios are being (or will be) implemented. Since Andrew doesn't link to any of these scenarios, or actually claim that there's a path to implementing them, I can't address them directly. However, I've seen no evidence that any country has any plan that might lead to "achieving the Paris Agreement's target", or that there's any approach to achieve this target that is technically and economically feasible without drastically reducing energy use for all purposes. So, the "scenarios" are really irrelevant to the issue of LNG exports.
"The LNG infrastructure being proposed, however, will have a lifetime of 50-100 years. This means that building this infrastructure locks us into emissions extending well beyond the expected shutdown date of most coal plants." With or without this infrastructure, we are locked into emissions extending well beyond 2040. If, as Andrew has said elsewhere, carbon-free energy is more affordable than fossil fuels, then everyone will abandon LNG infrastructure, gas turbines, and all the other fossil fuel infrastructure. But carbon-free energy is not more affordable, and has little prospect of ever becoming so. At best, we'd have to spend trillions to create a new energy system while maintaining and operating the existing one in parallel. At worst, the zero-carbon system will never be built at all.
"Thus, considering the full lifespan of the infrastructure, these LNG plants will lead to higher emissions." This makes the assumption that coal systems will be retired simply because the "scenarios" require it, and be replaced by zero-carbon energy systems, again simply because the "scenarios" require it. This is magical thinking.
"With the shift towards exportation, U.S. consumers must now pay the global price for natural gas." This is true. The implication is that US consumers will pay lower prices for natural gas if exports are prohibited. This may be true, if US production is much cheaper than foreign production. However, it will be at the expense of other countries, most of which are our friends, and also want to reduce their carbon emissions. Less gas for these countries, or much higher prices, is not likely to lead to less emissions. More likely, as in the current example of Germany, it will lead to more coal.
"This fact that the Russian invasion of Ukraine raised prices for U.S. consumers" This fact is not demonstrated. The graph shows a one-month spike in US spot prices at the time of the Ukraine invasion. However, much natural gas is bought and sold under long-term contracts. US consumers' bills may have been entirely unaffected. EDIT to add: it turns out that the US Energy Information Administration tracks average prices for natural gas delivered to residential consumers (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3m.htm). Consumers faced no price spike in early 2021.
"We can drill, drill, drill, but for both oil and gas, which are priced globally, bad actors like Russia or Saudi Arabia can still raise the price U.S. consumers pay by, for example, raising the price Europeans are paying." This doesn't make an argument at all. Should we believe that refusing to produce oil and gas in the US will make energy more affordable for the US and the rest of the world? Of course other producers have some influence on world prices. They won't have less influence if we take our energy off the market.
"The iron rule of climate policy should be: do not build more long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure" This is a tactic used by many "environmentalists". For instance, they are working hard to block new oil pipelines. However, they don't prevent the oil from being produced or used. They just divert it to more expensive, less safe transportation means, like rail cars. It doesn't sound like a win for the environment, the climate, or consumers. But it does help with fundraising.
"There is no fossil-fuel powered path to energy freedom." What does this mean? What is "energy freedom"? Freedom from energy? Free energy? Energy that relies on no external factors? None of these are possible. There is no argument here.
Don't make perfect the enemy of good. There is also nothing stopping the LNG being created synthetically in the future, in fact it may become the cheapest way to get CH4.
After listening to the Shift Key podcast by Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins it hit me how everyone is falling on their sword over CP2 which represents only a 7% increase (2.64 bcf/d = 20 MTPA) in LNG capacity over the total of existing capacity (11.44 bcf/d), capacity under construction (9.69 bcf/d), and capacity approved but not started (16.09 bcf/d) - Total = 37.2 bcf/d.
I think the fact that CP2 represents such a small percentage of the total U.S. LNG commitment already in the pipeline is lost on most people. I've studied this issue a lot and it came as a surprise to me.
I know we have to draw a line somewhere and the review, pause and policy discussion are important but I'm starting to question the timing. I lean center-left but this looks like a symbolic, political gesture to me at this point.
1. I am disappointed that Zeke hasn't weighed in here. As far as I can tell, none of these tradeoff studies, including Yang, have used climate models to assess the tradeoffs. Zeke appears to be the only one that has. At least Yang references Zeke's work. I have not seen any others that do, e.g. Deborah Gordon et al., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db/pdf .
The suggestion that building LNG infrastructure "locks us into emissions" well beyond the lifetime of existing coal-fired plants is not a true statement. In the USA, we've been shutting down coal-fired powerplants before the end of their engineered lifetimes because cleaner energy technologies were economically better.
Economic gravity wins. As the IEA recently noted, we have been "bending the [emissions] curve over the past decade or so by developing and applying modular, mass-produced, low-carbon, clean energy technologies that that are economically preferable. Examples are solar photovoltaics, wind generators, heat pumps, batteries & battery-electric vehicles, and hydrogen & hydrogen fuel cells.
This is the trend, noted by the IEA, that gets us to peak anthropogenic CO2 emissions during this decade, perhaps in 2025 (a milestone that is called for in Section 4 of the Paris Agreement). Following that, we should expect (and hope) to see atmospheric CO2 levels peak within a couple of decades after that (also a milestone called for in Section 4 of the Paris Agreement).
That's not to say that we should build lots of additional LNG infrastructure. Rather, I'm just pointing out that the argument that such construction locks us into 50-100 of using that infrastructure is incorrect.
Total disagreement. It will cost US jobs and profits for an insignificant reduction in CO2 emissions.
It cannot be good electoral politics: more swing voters care about jobs or just pride in American export prowess than care about reducing US fossil fuel production.
It sends a terrible signal to Europe in the middle of Putin's invasion.
Howarth and McKibben are spot on. We have much better solutions. This is the business of fossil fuels trying to twist the nose of leadership, again. Save money while saving the planet and blow them and their unsupportable hogwash excuses to delay their demise. Do your homework, and it is obvious. The administration sees it now. Moving on... all the way now to faster ROI and smart power. Free from the sun in short order. Please don’t buy into this pitch to more unsustainable atmospheric and oceanic harm.
Here's what I think.
1. I think pausing is the right thing to do.
2. I think that there is enough information out there to make a decision and that Congress should demand that DOE give them a recommendation in 1 to 2 months.
3. I think the answer depends on how much coal the LNG displaces, https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/howarth-natural-gas. If I understand Zeke's analysis correctly, basically LNG beats coal regardless of assumed reasonable leaks rates for methane in terms of long term warming potential or forcing function.
4. Believing that we are going to drive global coal use to zero in 15 years is not realistic. We will be lucky to drive coal to zero in the U.S. in 15 years.
5. I don't think Howarth and McKibben should be driving the bus.
Natural gas means the continuation of business as usual, but with a slightly different fuel stock. Successfully transitioning means changing the infrastructure and economics so that it only make sense to rely on wind and solar. Will that transition occur because of the invisible hand of the market or by government fiat? Probably a combination of both.
I wholeheartedly agree that building infrastructure that will last 50 - 100 years for LNG smooths the way for it's continued use, but hope that decreasing costs of renewables, along with a society that reforms manufacturing, power generation, and general living preferences to end the use of LNG well before it pushes us well over 2 degrees of warming.
This is an unusually muddled argument. I hardly know where to begin.
"This coal-for-gas substitution has been occurring in the U.S. for the last 20 years and is a primary reason for the decline in U.S. emissions over that period." The substitution has actually been going for 35 years, ever since the US government allowed the use of natural gas for electric generation. It has spread worldwide, wherever natural gas supplies are available. It doesn't take any regulation to make this happen: natural gas is cleaner, easier to use, and cheaper to build than coal. Encouraging more use of natural gas worldwide is the most effective way to reduce emissions in the short term. It won't get to zero emissions, but nothing else will, either.
"But most scenarios for achieving the Paris Agreement’s target of “well below 2°C” have global coal use dropping to near zero in the next 15 years." This seems to assume that the existence of these scenarios means that the scenarios are being (or will be) implemented. Since Andrew doesn't link to any of these scenarios, or actually claim that there's a path to implementing them, I can't address them directly. However, I've seen no evidence that any country has any plan that might lead to "achieving the Paris Agreement's target", or that there's any approach to achieve this target that is technically and economically feasible without drastically reducing energy use for all purposes. So, the "scenarios" are really irrelevant to the issue of LNG exports.
"The LNG infrastructure being proposed, however, will have a lifetime of 50-100 years. This means that building this infrastructure locks us into emissions extending well beyond the expected shutdown date of most coal plants." With or without this infrastructure, we are locked into emissions extending well beyond 2040. If, as Andrew has said elsewhere, carbon-free energy is more affordable than fossil fuels, then everyone will abandon LNG infrastructure, gas turbines, and all the other fossil fuel infrastructure. But carbon-free energy is not more affordable, and has little prospect of ever becoming so. At best, we'd have to spend trillions to create a new energy system while maintaining and operating the existing one in parallel. At worst, the zero-carbon system will never be built at all.
"Thus, considering the full lifespan of the infrastructure, these LNG plants will lead to higher emissions." This makes the assumption that coal systems will be retired simply because the "scenarios" require it, and be replaced by zero-carbon energy systems, again simply because the "scenarios" require it. This is magical thinking.
"With the shift towards exportation, U.S. consumers must now pay the global price for natural gas." This is true. The implication is that US consumers will pay lower prices for natural gas if exports are prohibited. This may be true, if US production is much cheaper than foreign production. However, it will be at the expense of other countries, most of which are our friends, and also want to reduce their carbon emissions. Less gas for these countries, or much higher prices, is not likely to lead to less emissions. More likely, as in the current example of Germany, it will lead to more coal.
"This fact that the Russian invasion of Ukraine raised prices for U.S. consumers" This fact is not demonstrated. The graph shows a one-month spike in US spot prices at the time of the Ukraine invasion. However, much natural gas is bought and sold under long-term contracts. US consumers' bills may have been entirely unaffected. EDIT to add: it turns out that the US Energy Information Administration tracks average prices for natural gas delivered to residential consumers (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3m.htm). Consumers faced no price spike in early 2021.
"We can drill, drill, drill, but for both oil and gas, which are priced globally, bad actors like Russia or Saudi Arabia can still raise the price U.S. consumers pay by, for example, raising the price Europeans are paying." This doesn't make an argument at all. Should we believe that refusing to produce oil and gas in the US will make energy more affordable for the US and the rest of the world? Of course other producers have some influence on world prices. They won't have less influence if we take our energy off the market.
"The iron rule of climate policy should be: do not build more long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure" This is a tactic used by many "environmentalists". For instance, they are working hard to block new oil pipelines. However, they don't prevent the oil from being produced or used. They just divert it to more expensive, less safe transportation means, like rail cars. It doesn't sound like a win for the environment, the climate, or consumers. But it does help with fundraising.
"There is no fossil-fuel powered path to energy freedom." What does this mean? What is "energy freedom"? Freedom from energy? Free energy? Energy that relies on no external factors? None of these are possible. There is no argument here.
Don't make perfect the enemy of good. There is also nothing stopping the LNG being created synthetically in the future, in fact it may become the cheapest way to get CH4.
After listening to the Shift Key podcast by Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins it hit me how everyone is falling on their sword over CP2 which represents only a 7% increase (2.64 bcf/d = 20 MTPA) in LNG capacity over the total of existing capacity (11.44 bcf/d), capacity under construction (9.69 bcf/d), and capacity approved but not started (16.09 bcf/d) - Total = 37.2 bcf/d.
Ref. EIA https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php - U.S. liquefaction capacity.
I think the fact that CP2 represents such a small percentage of the total U.S. LNG commitment already in the pipeline is lost on most people. I've studied this issue a lot and it came as a surprise to me.
I know we have to draw a line somewhere and the review, pause and policy discussion are important but I'm starting to question the timing. I lean center-left but this looks like a symbolic, political gesture to me at this point.
A couple more comments.
1. I am disappointed that Zeke hasn't weighed in here. As far as I can tell, none of these tradeoff studies, including Yang, have used climate models to assess the tradeoffs. Zeke appears to be the only one that has. At least Yang references Zeke's work. I have not seen any others that do, e.g. Deborah Gordon et al., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db/pdf .
2. Carbon Brief has posted a very extensive review of the issue, https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-does-bidens-lng-pause-mean-for-global-emissions/ .
The suggestion that building LNG infrastructure "locks us into emissions" well beyond the lifetime of existing coal-fired plants is not a true statement. In the USA, we've been shutting down coal-fired powerplants before the end of their engineered lifetimes because cleaner energy technologies were economically better.
Economic gravity wins. As the IEA recently noted, we have been "bending the [emissions] curve over the past decade or so by developing and applying modular, mass-produced, low-carbon, clean energy technologies that that are economically preferable. Examples are solar photovoltaics, wind generators, heat pumps, batteries & battery-electric vehicles, and hydrogen & hydrogen fuel cells.
This is the trend, noted by the IEA, that gets us to peak anthropogenic CO2 emissions during this decade, perhaps in 2025 (a milestone that is called for in Section 4 of the Paris Agreement). Following that, we should expect (and hope) to see atmospheric CO2 levels peak within a couple of decades after that (also a milestone called for in Section 4 of the Paris Agreement).
That's not to say that we should build lots of additional LNG infrastructure. Rather, I'm just pointing out that the argument that such construction locks us into 50-100 of using that infrastructure is incorrect.
Total disagreement. It will cost US jobs and profits for an insignificant reduction in CO2 emissions.
It cannot be good electoral politics: more swing voters care about jobs or just pride in American export prowess than care about reducing US fossil fuel production.
It sends a terrible signal to Europe in the middle of Putin's invasion.