According to a Cornell study, liquefied natural gas is more harmful to the climate than coal

A new study from Cornell University provides a stark warning about the climate impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Contrary to the fossil fuel industry’s claims that LNG is a clean “bridge fuel” to a renewable future, the study shows that LNG’s greenhouse gas emissions are even worse than those of coal. This discovery has sparked new calls for the Biden administration to rethink its policies on LNG exports and take stronger action on climate change.

The study, conducted by Cornell scientist Robert Howarth, provides a detailed analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG produced and exported from the United States. The results are alarming: the climate impact of LNG, measured over a 20-year global warming potential, is 33% higher than that of coal. Even over a 100-year period, which tends to downplay the immediate impact of certain emissions like methane, LNG’s footprint is equal to or greater than that of coal.

The enormous climate footprint of LNG

Howarth’s research highlights the significant environmental costs of LNG. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over a 20-year period. This makes methane leaks, which are widespread throughout the process of LNG extraction, liquefaction, transportation and storage, a crucial factor in LNG’s outsized greenhouse gas footprint.

“Emissions of methane and carbon dioxide released during the extraction, processing, transportation and storage of LNG account for approximately half of the total greenhouse gas footprint,” Howarth explained in the study. This means that while LNG is promoted as a cleaner source of energy, the reality is that methane leaks during extraction and transportation make it one of the most harmful fossil fuels.

To convert natural gas into LNG, the gas must be supercooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit, a process that requires enormous amounts of energy. The LNG is then transported on ships, many of which burn LNG as fuel, releasing more methane into the atmosphere. Howarth says: “Almost all methane emissions occur upstream when the shale gas is extracted and liquefied. All of this is being exaggerated just to bring liquefied natural gas to market.”

Despite advances in shipping technology, even modern tankers with more fuel-efficient engines leak methane. This leakage further increases the environmental impact of LNG. “Despite better fuel efficiency and lower carbon dioxide emissions, methane still escapes in the tanker’s exhaust,” notes Howarth.

The myth of LNG as a “bridge fuel”

The results of this study go to the heart of the narrative that LNG can serve as a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy. For years, LNG has been marketed as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, offering a path to a low-carbon economy. But the data shows something different.

Howarth’s study is a clear refutation of this argument. His analysis shows that LNG not only offers no significant climate advantage over coal, but also carries its own risks. The study states: “Liquefied natural gas will always have a larger climate footprint than natural gas, regardless of assumptions about it being a bridge fuel. It’s still a lot worse than coal.”

These findings have significant implications for U.S. energy policy, especially given that the U.S. has become the world’s largest LNG exporter after lifting its LNG export ban in 2016. The vast majority of LNG produced in the United States comes from shale gas extracted through hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a process known for its environmental damage, including methane leaks.

Calls for policy reform and industry accountability

In the wake of the study, climate advocates are once again calling for the Biden administration to take decisive action. Jamie Henn, chief executive of Fossil Free Media, said: “This should be the final nail in the coffin for the false narrative that LNG is somehow a climate solution. “Approving further LNG exports is clearly inconsistent with the public interest.”

Henn’s call is part of a broader movement urging the Biden administration to make its temporary pause on permits for LNG exports permanent. As the climate crisis escalates, advocates argue that further investment in LNG infrastructure is economically and environmentally unsustainable.

Jason Rylander, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, expressed these concerns. “LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy. “It’s a highway to climate hell,” Rylander said, emphasizing that expanding LNG infrastructure would tie the U.S. to emissions-intensive energy for decades.

Howarth’s findings are particularly timely as the Biden administration is under pressure to accelerate the clean energy transition. In light of the study, environmental groups are urging the government to prioritize investments in renewable energy over LNG and other fossil fuels.

Global impact and the path forward

The implications of the Cornell study extend beyond U.S. borders. As the world’s largest LNG exporter, the US’s LNG policy has global implications. Because methane is a significant contributor to short-term global warming, LNG exports could undermine global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet climate goals.

Alex Walker, climate finance program manager at Environmental Defense, pointed out that “LNG is not a bridge fuel.” He and other climate advocates emphasize that the future of energy must be based on truly clean alternatives such as wind, solar and energy efficiency measures, rather than fossil fuel-based solutions that exacerbate climate change.

“Liquefied natural gas will always have a larger climate footprint than natural gas or coal,” concludes Howarth. “We urgently need to move away from LNG and focus on renewable energy solutions to truly tackle the climate crisis.”