Get the Full Story on LNG Exports

Pragmatic policy decisions should be informed by facts and data, not sensationalized headlines that do not accurately represent the findings within the studies.

The results in study after study are clear: Replacing foreign coal with U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) leads to lifecycle emissions reductions.

Read the Reliable Analysis

In July 2024, ICF International, a leading science-based climate consultancy that conducts independent research for government agencies and organizations, released a study analyzing the lifecycle of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of U.S. LNG exports. The study found that:

Without U.S. LNG exports abroad, global GHG emissions would have increased in 2022 by over 112 million metric tons, mostly produced by coal.

The reduction in global GHG emissions attributed to U.S. LNG exports in 2030 is projected to be between 56–381 million tons of CO₂e per year.

Other studies, including those conducted by the  U.S. Department of Energy and Carnegie Mellon, found similar results.

Replacing foreign coal with U.S. LNG  reduces emissions, period.

Sensationalized Studies

Brown Study

Actual Headline

“Natural gas can rival coal’s climate-warming potential when leaks are counted”

Factual Headline

“Natural gas only rivals coal’s climate-warming potential when coal methane leaks aren’t counted”

The media sensationalized a 2023 study’s scenario indicating that natural gas could be worse for the climate than coal if the methane leakage rate exceeded 0.2%. However, they failed to mention that this figure relied on not counting methane emissions from coal production.

There is no such thing as coal with no associated methane emissions—it does not exist—and coal is the largest source of methane emissions from fossil fuels in the world according to the predominant autonomous intergovernmental organization, the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Howarth Study

Actual Headline

“How One Methane Scientist Influenced Biden’s Pause on LNG Approvals”

Factual Headline

“How one Methane Scientist’s ‘Deeply Flawed’ Study Influenced Biden’s Pause on LNG Approvals Before it was Peer-Reviewed”

In October 2023, Robert Howarth of Cornell University circulated a study — a year before it was peer reviewed — claiming that U.S. LNG exports are worse for the climate than coal. The study was covered extensively in the media, and is widely credited with influencing the Biden Administration’s LNG export facility approval pause. Globally recognized environmental research center, The Breakthrough Institute noted in a 2024 counter report that the study “is riddled with errors,” including:

Incorrectly excluding a high-production, low-leakage shale basin in Pennsylvania from its methane calculation.
Attributing all oil and gas methane emissions to natural gas production alone.
Presenting the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in terms of thermal fuel energy as opposed to electricity generated, which doesn’t account for natural gas plants’ superior power generation efficiency compared to coal.

Accounting for all errors in Howarth’s analysis, he overestimated the GHG intensity of delivered U.S. LNG by 32% on a 20-year basis and 30% on a 100-year basis.

Environmental Defense Fund Report

Actual Headline

“New Data Shows U.S. Oil & Gas Methane Emissions Over Four Times Higher than EPA Estimates, Eight Times Greater than Industry Target”

Factual Headline

“Data Shows U.S. Oil & Gas Methane Emissions Have Dropped 15% over the past 5 years”

In July 2024, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) released a report finding that the oil & gas methane loss rate observed across 12 U.S. shale basins is 1.6%. But rather than relying on the EPA national methane emissions rate to compare this loss with the generally accepted national averages, EDF used the EPA’s 2020 gridded inventory to pick out a few 100 square kilometer blocks that were 4x higher than the national average and choose to promote these as the overall findings of the report.

Had EDF utilized the national rate as they have in previous studies, this report would have demonstrated a 15% reduction in methane emissions from oil & gas companies since 2018 — consistent with what is being reported to the EPA.

EDF could also have compared the national rate to the gridded inventory and produced an explanation for why they believe the latter was more accurate. But they failed to do so and instead produced a flawed methodology that does not accurately represent this reduction in overall methane emissions over the last several years.

The Consequence of Inaccurate Conclusions is Severe

Media misrepresentations of studies have led to questionable policy decisions — such as the Biden Administration’s pause on LNG export approvals — that do not reflect the full picture, putting energy security and our climate goals at risk.

We must rely on accurate data which clearly shows that replacing coal with U.S. LNG for power generation reduces life-cycle emissions.

Voters Overwhelmingly Supportive of Natural Gas. Democratic Candidates Can Take Advantage.

Others remain silent and risk missing out on a potent electoral issue and tool for quickly decarbonizing emissions.

With the 2024 U.S. elections just two months away, candidates have limited time to engage with voters and take a stance on several critical issues, including the direction of energy and climate policy.

While Democrats have largely avoided public support for natural gas this election cycle, the recent presidential debate hosted by ABC News reinforced the bipartisan backing of this vital American resource. During the debate, Vice President Kamala Harris highlighted her work to invest in a diversity of energy sources including increasing “domestic gas production to historic levels.” While her remarks indicate a growing understanding of where voters are on the issue, the evidence suggests that adopting a more outwardly supportive position on natural gas will help her develop inroads with a majority of voters in both parties.

As the election draws nearer, Harris and the Democratic party have an opportunity to unite voters by being vocal about opportunities to use U.S. natural gas as a proven and widely popular decarbonization tool in the energy transition.

Jumpstarted by the U.S. shale boom, natural gas has been a key factor in reducing domestic emissions over last several years, and was once again the largest driver behind U.S. energy sector emissions reductions in 2023. Meanwhile, it has also served as an economic and job-creation engine in states like Pennsylvania.

A recent nationwide poll conducted by Impact Research and commissioned by the Partnership to Address Global Emissions (PAGE) shows that voters overwhelmingly support natural gas. In fact, 69% of voters, including most Democrats, support increasing natural gas production.

“The path to victory is clear: voters support natural gas, and lawmakers who have heeded public opinion have overwhelmingly been successful in their elections.”

The poll found that voters are increasingly pragmatic about the energy transition and the role of cleaner fuel sources such as natural gas. 76% of voters and 80% of Democrats want the country to move steadily to clean energy, using all available options, including natural gas, to keep energy affordable and reliable.

A winning issue for politicians and the environment

This recent polling is not an anomaly. The last several years have also proven that supporting natural gas is a winner at the ballot box, particularly for Democrats.

Lawmakers who publicly back this position include Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), a proponent of natural gas production, who has claimed that "climate change is an existential threat, but we must transition in a way that preserves the union way of life for thousands of workers currently employed or supported by the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania and the communities where they live."

In 2022, Fetterman vocally supported natural gas and won a hotly-contested Senate seat in a year when Republicans expected to make significant legislative gains. Two years after prevailing in this election, Fetterman holds a net +7% approval rating, according to a New York Times/Siena poll.

Besides Fetterman, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) has found similar electoral success. Bennet, now a three-term Senator, believes "it's been very important for American liquified natural gas (LNG) to replace the natural gas Russia was sending to Europe." The results showed in the 2022 midterms, where Bennet secured his reelection by 14.6%.

In the House, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) – also a strong proponent of exporting U.S. LNG to our allies overseas – represents one of the most competitive districts in the country. Nevertheless, Golden triumphed in 2020 despite Donald Trump winning the district by 11% that same year. And in 2022, Golden was reelected by 6.2%.

The Time to Champion Decarbonization is Now

The path to victory is clear: voters support natural gas, and lawmakers who have heeded public opinion have overwhelmingly been successful in their elections. By contrast, pursuing overly ambitious climate policies at the expense of proven solutions can have election consequences.

As we saw in Europe this summer, voters are willing to vote against policymakers who do not prioritize energy affordability, reliability, and security. As a result, pragmatic energy proponents made significant electoral gains across the EU's parliamentary elections.

The bottom line is that natural gas is an effective climate solution, and policymakers can openly support sensible energy policies to help them align with voters.

Shying away from natural gas could cost candidates support in November

Pursuing perfection at the expense of the good would derail the climate progress we’ve achieved over the last several years

Ahead of the 2024 U.S. elections, policymakers have only a few more months to make their case to the American people on how to address several critical issues, including the direction of energy and climate policy at the national level.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. has made significant progress in reducing carbon emissions with the help of U.S. natural gas, which accounts for a substantial portion of the decrease. Additionally, the Biden Administration and Congress have successfully implemented a range of policies over the last several years to tackle the nation’s CO2 emissions further.

Voters, including 80% of Democrats, want a steady transition to clean energy using all available resources.

However, rather than taking credit for these victories, some lawmakers have hesitated to voice their support for natural gas, fearing alienating voters and hurting their re-election chances. Ironically, for these policymakers, shying away from natural gas could do the reverse and hurt their re-election efforts.

According to a new nationwide poll conducted by Impact Research and commissioned by the Partnership to Address Global Emissions (PAGE), 69% of voters, including most Democrats, support increasing natural gas production.

Backfiring Ambition

Pursuing perfection at the expense of the good could derail our climate goals and make it even more challenging to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Climate-focused policymakers who fail to voice their support for affordable, reliable, and secure energy policies that include natural gas could face disappointing results at the ballot box in November. In fact, voters – including 80% of Democrats – want a steady transition to clean energy using all available resources according to the poll.

Policymakers encountered a similar scenario in 1993 when the Democratic-controlled House passed a large, broad-based BTU energy tax policy featuring then-President Clinton's high-profile public push. While the bill failed in the Senate, it nevertheless proved consequential in the 1994 mid-terms – Democrats lost 54 seats and control of the House.

More recently, Democrats pursued an overly ambitious cap-and-trade bill in 2010—the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill sought to impose a market-based system that would set a ceiling on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while allowing companies to trade permits to meet these requirements.

Much like the BTU tax, the cap-and-trade bill never made it through the Senate, mainly because an independent EIA study commissioned by Senate Democrats found that it would increase energy prices. This misfire provided campaign fodder for Republicans during the election cycle, and Democrats paid the price at the ballot box, losing a historic 63 House seats during the 2010 mid-terms.

Democrats still have time to support a popular solution responsible for a large portion of U.S. emissions reductions.

Lessons for 2024

With half the world's population holding elections in 2024, politicians would be wise to learn from the past and support a steady, pragmatic, clean energy transition using all available resources.

As we saw last month, the EU's Green Party faced significant losses in parliamentary elections. In contrast, opponents of highly restrictive EU climate policies saw substantial gains in countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy.

These results indicate that policymakers were moving faster on climate initiatives, impacting affordability and reliability, than voters were comfortable with. These losses may result in a dramatic shift in EU climate policy in the foreseeable future.  

EP Elections: The Shape of the New Parliament

As U.S. policymakers look onward, they currently sit at a significant crossroads. They can either pursue overly ambitious climate policies that voters don't support or embrace a proven approach to tackling global emissions and ensure our energy security by supporting U.S. natural gas.  

Candidates still have time to support a popular solution responsible for a large portion of U.S. emissions reductions. However, the clock is ticking, and voters have shown little patience with politicians who fail to heed public opinion.  