As Biden faces the biggest climate decision of his term, he's hearing "concerns" from one of his closest advisors—who happens to be a former gas executive.
I don't like anyone's ties to fossil fuels, but according to that Washington Post article it seems like this guy does understand energy markets really well, and that is why Biden respects him. Maybe this is just a difference of faith, but I do believe Biden has good advisors around him and he understands the climate implications of decisions like this. And while this advisor might have a more pro-gas view, Biden is taking that into account so like you mentioned it seems to be where to draw the line in making changes to the process.
Also I do want to say that any energy decision should be based on the most up to date information possible so I don't have any issue with a slight pause to get the best information on the true climate impact.
But I think I still have the same issue as I mentioned last week plus one more. For the latter one, I just don't agree with representing US fossil fuel exports, especially as it relates to gas to Europe as it is in this case, as going against US climate goals. Europe is demanding the gas so they should be responsible for the emissions from it.
The second issue still relates to I believe this overreliance on Howarth, when the facts aren't clear yet, when a portion of that overreliance is because I think he says what a lot of those in the climate movement want to hear, which I think is a problem in accurately assessing whether or not his claims are true. Not to belabor that point, but Mark Z Jacobson was a big thing until he wasn't.
And to expand what I said last week, what I really have a problem with is people like Bill McKibben in a sense not having the courage of their convictions. If someone like McKibben truly believes Howarth's claims, then I feel it is his responsibility to address the conflict with the IPCC net-zero pathway scenarios, which are based entirely around eliminating coal ASAP. He should have an answer to if what he wants comes to pass, blocking of these export terminals, what happens when Europe buys gas from Qatar leading to countries like Bangladesh burning 3x as much coal.
And if McKibben is wrong and Howarth's claims are wrong? I believe these terminals will happen, but them saying "oops we endorsed a path that not only was incorrect but led to massive coal burning sorry", is just not good enough for me after the fact.
I fully understand what my "pro gas export" position means, I can do the climate math as well as anyone, which is why I think me stating it at the outset while someone like McKibben doesn't, is unfair. Which is what it is.
Just my thoughts and none of it means I think you are in any way doing your accountability journalism wrong, and I in fact am grateful for articles like this.
This article is a good summary of the contemporary debates around LNG. As someone who has done academic research on this subject looking at limits to global demand, emissions associated with the LNG supply chain, and regulatory actions to address methane emissions, I have a unique perspective on this issue that's perhaps counter to popular rhetoric.
1) Considering the climate impacts of LNG exports is important and I come down on the side of more rather than less scrutiny. That said, most of the simplistic analyzes that gets headlines or quoted in news articles are just wrong. The question isn't, "how much CO2 will an LNG project emit over its lifetime". The question that needs to be answered is this, "if not US LNG, how is the importing country going to meet energy demand. i.e., what is the counterfactual scenario without LNG?". The latter is a much harder question to answer, and will determine whether any individual project has CO2 reduction benefits. For example, much of US LNG exported to China is used to replace coal in district heating, which probably reduces emissions against a counterfactual where China continues burning coal. However, this argument is not valid for all countries that import US LNG. So, more scrutiny is welcome.
2) As another commenter pointed out, I strongly disagree with Howarth's claims (have you noticed how his papers are almost always single authored?) and there good scientific reasons why his analysis is not representative. For example, his recent paper that got a lot of headlines around LNG was mainly about LNG shipping. In equivalent terms, it's like stating how bad it would be if everyone bought rolling coal trucks. Are rolling coal trucks bad? Of course. Are we going to see billions of rolling coal trucks in the near future? No. That's essentially what Howarth did when he assume that the worst LNG ships are the standard. It's not. This is but one of many examples where the scientific community has strong disagreements with Howarth et al., not unlike Jacobson and his team.
3) LNG exports is one area where you have to think about genuine national security implications (I am not an expert on this). The way I see it is that LNG exports should become the only reason to produce gas - and we need to get the as fast as possible. We have to reduce domestic consumption, so that any gas-related infrastructure such as LNG is evaluated from the perspective of whether it helps reduce global carbon emissions (related to my point #1 about counterfactuals).
4) Whether a specific project is given the green light or not, we need to keep an eye on two key issues - reducing methane leaks and reducing demand. Personally, I have chosen to focus on these issues rather than play whack-a-mole with individual projects as I believe trends in long-term demand are much more consequential for emissions than any single LNG terminal. But that's a personal choice, and others might come to a different conclusion.
Given the fact these mega methane ports are located on the coast, I hope that someone is at least looking at the effects of climate change on their location - make sure they're well above the rising seas...
This makes me sick. Biden has been all talk, no action on climate. Does he not have advisors that aren't former fossil fuels executives or lobbyists? This pains me. I am very worried for my grandchildren and future generations. As older Americans we need to stand up, demonstrate and not allow politicians to be the environmental stewards. We need Native Alaskan, Kanaka Maoli and Native Americans to be the stewards. These people have nurtured the earth. Believe we have to malama the aina It is what gives and provides us life They understand the importance of water. Wai is life. The natural springs, lakes, aquifers and water ways. Enough of these idiots who are only doing favors for their friends in these industries. Stand up, cry out, protest in any way you are able.
Thank you for this article.
I don't like anyone's ties to fossil fuels, but according to that Washington Post article it seems like this guy does understand energy markets really well, and that is why Biden respects him. Maybe this is just a difference of faith, but I do believe Biden has good advisors around him and he understands the climate implications of decisions like this. And while this advisor might have a more pro-gas view, Biden is taking that into account so like you mentioned it seems to be where to draw the line in making changes to the process.
Also I do want to say that any energy decision should be based on the most up to date information possible so I don't have any issue with a slight pause to get the best information on the true climate impact.
But I think I still have the same issue as I mentioned last week plus one more. For the latter one, I just don't agree with representing US fossil fuel exports, especially as it relates to gas to Europe as it is in this case, as going against US climate goals. Europe is demanding the gas so they should be responsible for the emissions from it.
The second issue still relates to I believe this overreliance on Howarth, when the facts aren't clear yet, when a portion of that overreliance is because I think he says what a lot of those in the climate movement want to hear, which I think is a problem in accurately assessing whether or not his claims are true. Not to belabor that point, but Mark Z Jacobson was a big thing until he wasn't.
And to expand what I said last week, what I really have a problem with is people like Bill McKibben in a sense not having the courage of their convictions. If someone like McKibben truly believes Howarth's claims, then I feel it is his responsibility to address the conflict with the IPCC net-zero pathway scenarios, which are based entirely around eliminating coal ASAP. He should have an answer to if what he wants comes to pass, blocking of these export terminals, what happens when Europe buys gas from Qatar leading to countries like Bangladesh burning 3x as much coal.
And if McKibben is wrong and Howarth's claims are wrong? I believe these terminals will happen, but them saying "oops we endorsed a path that not only was incorrect but led to massive coal burning sorry", is just not good enough for me after the fact.
I fully understand what my "pro gas export" position means, I can do the climate math as well as anyone, which is why I think me stating it at the outset while someone like McKibben doesn't, is unfair. Which is what it is.
Just my thoughts and none of it means I think you are in any way doing your accountability journalism wrong, and I in fact am grateful for articles like this.
This article is a good summary of the contemporary debates around LNG. As someone who has done academic research on this subject looking at limits to global demand, emissions associated with the LNG supply chain, and regulatory actions to address methane emissions, I have a unique perspective on this issue that's perhaps counter to popular rhetoric.
1) Considering the climate impacts of LNG exports is important and I come down on the side of more rather than less scrutiny. That said, most of the simplistic analyzes that gets headlines or quoted in news articles are just wrong. The question isn't, "how much CO2 will an LNG project emit over its lifetime". The question that needs to be answered is this, "if not US LNG, how is the importing country going to meet energy demand. i.e., what is the counterfactual scenario without LNG?". The latter is a much harder question to answer, and will determine whether any individual project has CO2 reduction benefits. For example, much of US LNG exported to China is used to replace coal in district heating, which probably reduces emissions against a counterfactual where China continues burning coal. However, this argument is not valid for all countries that import US LNG. So, more scrutiny is welcome.
2) As another commenter pointed out, I strongly disagree with Howarth's claims (have you noticed how his papers are almost always single authored?) and there good scientific reasons why his analysis is not representative. For example, his recent paper that got a lot of headlines around LNG was mainly about LNG shipping. In equivalent terms, it's like stating how bad it would be if everyone bought rolling coal trucks. Are rolling coal trucks bad? Of course. Are we going to see billions of rolling coal trucks in the near future? No. That's essentially what Howarth did when he assume that the worst LNG ships are the standard. It's not. This is but one of many examples where the scientific community has strong disagreements with Howarth et al., not unlike Jacobson and his team.
3) LNG exports is one area where you have to think about genuine national security implications (I am not an expert on this). The way I see it is that LNG exports should become the only reason to produce gas - and we need to get the as fast as possible. We have to reduce domestic consumption, so that any gas-related infrastructure such as LNG is evaluated from the perspective of whether it helps reduce global carbon emissions (related to my point #1 about counterfactuals).
4) Whether a specific project is given the green light or not, we need to keep an eye on two key issues - reducing methane leaks and reducing demand. Personally, I have chosen to focus on these issues rather than play whack-a-mole with individual projects as I believe trends in long-term demand are much more consequential for emissions than any single LNG terminal. But that's a personal choice, and others might come to a different conclusion.
Thank you for your reporting on this subject.
As always, appreciate your work.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
Given the fact these mega methane ports are located on the coast, I hope that someone is at least looking at the effects of climate change on their location - make sure they're well above the rising seas...
Great article! Thank you for keeping us updated on this important issue.
This makes me sick. Biden has been all talk, no action on climate. Does he not have advisors that aren't former fossil fuels executives or lobbyists? This pains me. I am very worried for my grandchildren and future generations. As older Americans we need to stand up, demonstrate and not allow politicians to be the environmental stewards. We need Native Alaskan, Kanaka Maoli and Native Americans to be the stewards. These people have nurtured the earth. Believe we have to malama the aina It is what gives and provides us life They understand the importance of water. Wai is life. The natural springs, lakes, aquifers and water ways. Enough of these idiots who are only doing favors for their friends in these industries. Stand up, cry out, protest in any way you are able.