A controversial study by a Cornell University climate scientist has given climate change activists and the media the ammunition to mount a pressure campaign on the Biden administration to take action on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
Robert Howarth of Cornell University wrote the October 2023 paper. studyThe paper claims to have found that the life-cycle emissions associated with LNG exports are much greater than those caused by domestically mined coal. Many media outletinclude new york timesclimate change activists lobbying the Biden administration to block LNG exports make their case before the White House announces suspension of approvals for LNG export terminals on January 26 He cited this study as evidence.
The study, titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States,” found that “Greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are also greater than greenhouse gas emissions from domestically produced coal; The range was found to be 44% to more than 2%. The average range of LNG tankers will double. Howarth, who openly opposes the use of fossil fuels, admitted that he published his research before it was peer-reviewed in order to influence the LNG export debate.
“According to the ethical guidelines of several professional societies to which I belong, scientists have an obligation to provide information to the public and decision-makers on important public issues when such information is accessible. There is,” Howarth told DCNF.
howarth Said Environmental activist Bill McKibben was the man who persuaded the study to be published before it underwent a months-long peer review process.McKibben himself I have written The study was published in The New Yorker in October 2023 and touted as proof that the Biden administration should not expand LNG export capacity.
After McKibben published an article in the New Yorker, howarth After sharing this research with the public, the two participated in a press conference in November 2023, along with several climate change activists and Democratic lawmakers (including Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley), to discuss the issue of LNG exports. Ta. according to Go to E&E News.
“From what I’ve heard from reporters and what I’ve read in the press, yes, my paper has had some impact,” Howarth said.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal report Howarth’s research influenced the Biden administration’s decision to suspend approvals for new LNG export hubs.
Howarth’s study “contributed to the Biden administration’s decision to suspend decisions required to approve new LNG export projects and launch a U.S. Department of Energy investigation into the climate impacts of LNG exports. “It’s clear,” said Stephen Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund. chief scientist, Said Bloomberg News.
The White House has always felt pressure from left-wing lawmakers and environmental activists who regularly cite this study to block U.S. natural gas exports.
Merkley cited Howarth’s research as “the latest in climate science” in a November 2023 paper. letter Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Sixty-four other members of Congress signed the letter, calling on Granholm to update the agency’s review process for LNG export facilities to include climate impacts.
Similarly, the Sierra Club promotion An article cited this study and called one of the affected LNG export hubs a “carbon bomb.” A destructive organization called Climate Defiance promotion The study conducted research on social media before meeting with Presidential Senior Advisor John Podesta in December 2023 to lobby against the planned expansion of LNG export capacity. (Related: Biden administration relied on questionable and misleading science to justify halting natural gas hub approvals)
The best solution is to end the use of fossil natural gas as soon as possible, as outlined in the Climate Action Council’s Scope Plan (December 2022). If the state followed this plan, gas usage would drop by 50% within 10 years. It’s time to start dismantling the pipeline system, rather than rebuilding it. https://t.co/UglBTnk0ji
— Robert Howarth (@howarth_cornell) April 24, 2023
Many environmental groups cited Howarth’s research. letter It was sent to President Joe Biden and praised his Jan. 26 decision to suspend new LNG export terminals. Environmentalists also made the demands to Biden in a letter.[stop] All LNG and associated fossil fuel infrastructure is permitted in all U.S. federal agencies. ”
“Widely condemned and largely dismissed.”
howarth‘s findings contradict a number of existing studies on the subject, including two Department of Energy (DOE) studies. 2014 and 2019, concludes that U.S. LNG exports to Asia and Europe do not produce more lifecycle emissions than locally mined coal when used to generate electricity. The Cornell University professor’s research has angered the oil and gas industry, which points out that: howarth‘s latest findings are separate from a robust body of research on the subject.
“Dr. Robert howarth “Publicly admitted to prematurely publishing research that had not yet been peer-reviewed in order to influence politics and advance activist agendas opposed to responsible oil and gas development.” Jeff Eshelman, chairman and CEO of , told DCNF. “His research has been widely condemned and largely ignored by the scientific community, including data from the Department of Energy, which ignores the environmental benefits of natural gas and LNG in the United States.”
Howarth — explained Politico is a “long-time sparring partner in the gas industry.” come under It has come under fire in the past for promoting questionable science about natural gas. Back in 2012, he Said A New York Post columnist said he was trying to make the anti-fracking movement more mainstream and trendy.
Howarth himself is closely tied to environmental activism.he board member for food and water monitoring (FWW) is an environmentally friendly nonprofit organization. ran a campaign Although he opposes natural gas development and exploration in New York state, he denies that his unpaid position affects his work.
Part of the funding for his new paper was park foundationa left-wing nonprofit organization. goal of “[challenging] “Continued shale gas extraction and infrastructure expansion” and strong In front of you Howarth University is located in New York State. Howarth told DCNF that the Park Foundation’s “modest” financial support for his research does not constitute a conflict of interest and that the organization has no influence over his research.
The Park Foundation’s Environmental Committee “recognizes that a firm stance against further oil and gas development is a necessary factor in future funding decisions” and is “committed to a ‘keep it in the ground’ philosophy”; Or are determined to support efforts to resist oil. gas drilling and infrastructure expansion; according to Go to the organization’s website.
The Park Foundation donated more than $530,000 to Cornell University to support natural gas-related academic research from 2010 to 2021. according to For DCNF examination of tax returns.
Howarth’s research cites seven of his own previous papers, at least five of which were funded by the Park Foundation, DCNF. review What those studies found.
Howarth regularly criticizes Republicans on social media. Blame “Party of disinformation and misinformation”cultIts members “don’t care about the truth at all.” He also speaks out against the continued use of fossil fuels.
“I definitely consider myself an objective scientist,” Howarth said. “As a citizen, I also have an ethical obligation to participate in society. No, I am not apolitical. However, I am confident that my political views will not influence my scientific work. I am.”
“We do not guarantee quality or accuracy.”
Howarth calculates the emissions produced by natural gas exports at every stage, from initial extraction to processing, to final destination and end use, and compares those emissions to each stage of domestic coal extraction and use. By comparing with volume, we arrived at the top line discovery.
However, Howarth has revised his study several times since he shared it with the public.of initial version It argued that the life cycle emissions of LNG exports are higher than those of domestically produced coal, with a difference between 24% and 274%. The study was updated on January 13 to reflect that “total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are higher than those from domestic coal, and range from 27% to twice the average range of an LNG tanker.” are doing.
howarth announced On March 13, he said, “Using a new estimate of emissions from the best-studied major U.S. shale gas fields of 4.6% (not including urban/suburban (sic) distribution systems) The company announced that it had revised its research again.
After an update in March, the study now claims that lifecycle emissions from LNG exports can be between 44% and more than 200% higher than domestic coal emissions.
These updates have been met with considerable criticism from the oil and gas industry and academics.
William Jordan, general counsel for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based natural gas company EQT, told the Journal that Howarth did not cherry-pick the data or rely on faulty assumptions to seek influence over understanding. He suggested.
“Just before Christmas, I received two anonymous reviews from this journal as well as input from people who had read the original version online. I revised the manuscript based on these comments and published it on January 13. I sent it back to the Journal on the same day,” Howarth told DCNF in defense of his update.
“The version that is currently online is the latest version,” Howarth told DCNF. “It’s very common to revise a review in response to peer review comments. That’s exactly what peer review is for!” (Related: Could Joe Biden’s natural gas moratorium hurt Democrats in the Senate in November?)
GHG emissions from LNG are much higher than traditional natural gas. LNG is a climate disaster. https://t.co/dq1EVgaHCz
— Robert Howarth (@howarth_cornell) September 26, 2023
Roger Pilke Jr., a former academic and author of many books on politicized science, told DCNF that such practices are common but less than ideal.
“Posting preprints is now standard practice in many fields, and preprints are preprints,” Pielke said. “However, passive peer review does not guarantee quality or accuracy and is often only a minimal check on quality. No paper provides the last word, and these days research It is often carried out with this in mind.”
“This challenges all of us, especially journalists, to be careful and critical consumers of the latest and greatest science,” Pielke said. “Too often, published research is used to support favored or previously held positions rather than considering its merits.”
Howarth’s study also relies heavily on a 20-year timeframe for assessing the impact of emissions from LNG exports. Typically, his researchers adopt his 100-year outlook, but Howarth has called that figure “arbitrary” in his own research.
“Use [the twenty-year timeframe]LNG consistently emits more greenhouse gases than coal,” Howarth wrote in the study.
“What we’re seeing here is the standard climate change activist and Biden administration formula at work,” said the 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry, who now writes about the energy sector. and consultant David Blackmon told DCNF. “First, you are claiming that a problem exists without any scientific basis. Second, identify ‘studies’ with results you like that can be used to form the basis of your policy advocacy,” Give it to your former fellow activists now in government and let them run it. ”
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
