1982: Dome Petroleum LNG bomb cartoon in Vancouver Sun
The Climate Scientist Fossil-Fuel Companies Can’t Stand, Robert Howarth’s research on natural gas exports influenced the White House and exasperated oil and gas executives by Benoît Morenne, March 31, 2024, The Wall Street Journal
Robert Howarth, a methane researcher, says ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.
Robert Howarth is getting under the skin of the oil-and-gas industry. The gray-haired
climate scientist says he doesn’t care.
Howarth, a methane researcher at Cornell University, said in a recent study that exports of
liquefied natural gas from the U.S. were so bad for the climate that ending the use of LNG should be a global priority. The research influenced President Biden’s decision in January to pause new approvals of LNG exports.
The turn of events riled executives throughout the fracking industry—especially at Pittsburgh-based EQT , the country’s largest natural-gas producer.
The fracker extracts natural gas from Appalachian fields and has been evangelizing the
benefits of U.S. LNG, which it says can help reduce carbon emissions abroad.
EQT is campaigning to quadruple the nation’s export capacity by 2030. T-shirts it sells online are marked with the words “UNLEASH U.S. LNG.”
William Jordan, EQT’s general counsel, said Howarth has been seeking to influence
policymakers at the expense of rigor. He said Howarth crossed the line between research
and advocacy, and his work contributes to a false narrative that shutting down natural gas
pipelines and blocking LNG plants helps mitigate climate change.
I’ve learned directly that lawyers lie, a lot. And oil, gas and frac lawyers lie more than most. Your words mean nothing to me Mr. Jordan.
“It’s a problem when the purpose of scientific research shifts from gaining understanding
to influencing,” Jordan said in the company’s first public remarks about the research.What an asshole you are, Mr. Jordan
After Republicans and Democrats in Washington last year asked EQT about Howarth’s
research, EQT did a deep dive into the scientist’s work. It put together a PowerPoint
presentation for policymakers that raised questions about Howarth’s methods and his ties
to anti-fracking groups, according to people familiar with the matter.
Howarth, a tenured faculty member at Cornell for nearly 40 years, said EQT’s rebuke
annoyed him but didn’t surprise him.
“The oil-and-gas industry has a track record of trying to trash the reputations of scientists whose results they do not like.”The industry and its endless enablers also trash the medical doctors that raise health alarms about toxic “best” practices, and the humans that the industry’s pollution and frequent law violations sickens and kills.
Howarth’s work has brought him scorn across the industry. The Independent Petroleum
Association of America, one of the industry’s largest lobbying groups, recently described
his research as “biased and agenda-driven.”That’s rich coming from industry’s biggest liar, after CAPP, Canada’s propaganda industry group.
The sparring underscores what is at stake for frackers. Gas producers argue that natural
gas is much cleaner than coal and has an important role to play in the nascent energy
transition. The industry says rising global coal consumption proves developing nations
can’t just leap to renewables and need a cleaner substitute. In the U.S., a projected surge in
electricity demand has utilities and tech companies discussing the need for more fossil
fuel.
But opposition to new natural gas infrastructure, which will produce new greenhouse gas
emissions for decades, is ramping up. EnvironmentalistsScientists and groups trying to protect public health, commuities, families and wildlife/livestock, and prevent further destruction of drinking water, climate and environment have singled out included exports of U.S. LNGas wells as many other polluting and health harming oil and gas industry practices/products like spreading radioactive waste on parks, crops and grasslands (including protected areas),cd vgc roads, in swimming pools, etc (the list is endless), saying they hurt the climate, the U.S. economy and local communities.
One weapon in their arsenal has been Howarth. He said both academics and activists had
encouraged him to research the greenhouse gas footprint of U.S. LNG. He concluded that
leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, made LNG exports worse than burning coal
over a 20-year period. Last fall, he publicly shared his analysis before it had undergone
peer review.Which many academics and researchers do
Green activists and Democratic lawmakers cited the research as they lobbied the Biden
administration to block planned LNG terminals on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Not peer reviewed
Jordan said Howarth eschewed scientific accountability as he sought to influence
policymaking by releasing his study before it had been peer-reviewed. EQT has criticized
Biden’s pause, saying it would hamper the country’s ability to help lower while reality shows, not just Howarth’s research, it would dramatically increaseemissions
globally, and would withhold much-needed energy supplies from U.S. allies.
“If we’re not following science, scientific consensus, then any single scientist can influence
policy decisions for the good or for the bad,” Jordan said.What an idiot. You need to study science Mr. Lawyer before you foolishly mouth off about that which you know little.
Howarth said he would have preferred for his work to go through a peer-review process
before publishing it. But he said he trusted his findings, and that he had an ethical duty to
participate in an important debate in a timely manner.
“I’ve taken a calculated risk, and I wouldn’t have taken the calculated risk unless I was
really confident,” he said.
In a way, Howarth had been on a collision course with EQT for years. The company says the
U.S. sits on so much cheap natural gas that it could supply global markets for decades and
help phase out global coal use. EQT Chief Executive Toby Rice has advocated for erecting
new LNG terminals on the East Coast, which would allow it to ship more molecules to
foreign markets abroad and increase demandbut much more importantly for greedy frac’ers, dramatically drive up price for EQT’s gas.More and more people see the harms caused by frac’ers like EQT, and want frac’ing criminalized and or stopped and less invasive and harmful technologies used instead that do not permanently remove water from the hydrogeological cycle removing it from future use. In my professional opinion, I think LNG promoters like EQT are pimping LNG for the sole reason of greed. Exports drive up price. The rich want more and more profits and don’t give a shit if North Americans freeze in the dark with contaminated water and failing health from frac harms.
Jordan said Howarth’s argument that shale gas is worse for the climate than coal relies on
flawed assumptions about how much methane coal and shale gas emit, and that the
scientist is cherry-picking data.I see more fingers pointing back at frac lawyers and LNG pimps than at Howarth He said a research effort involving academics and partially
funded by EQT has found that at least in some parts of Appalachia where the company
operates, coal mines emit much more methane than shale gas operations.I’ve learned to never trust research financed and thus controlled by industry, especially not if their funding demands their data be used and their conclusions reported.
Howarth said he categorically denied Jordan’s assertion that his assumptions are flawed or
that he is selectively picking data. He noted he is one of the most cited scientists in the
world, and said that overall, his research had been received positively by the rest of the
scientific community.
“Many of my colleagues have congratulated me for having the wisdom AND COURAGE, oil, gas and frac is an incredibly nasty dishonest powerful ruthless greed driven industry to take on important topics such as methane from shale gas…and LNG in a timely way,” he said.
This isn’t Howarth’s first time dueling with critics—or courting controversy. In 2011, he
said in a study that natural gas fracking resulted in significant methane leaks. Though
environmentalists praised the research, some scientists criticized it as sloppy, and the oil-
and-gas industry lambasted Howarth as an anti-fossil fuel activist.Much other research by other scientists have affirmed Howarth’s 2011 paper, including even by regulators.
… Howarth has no plans to stop weighing in on fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change.
“Albert Einstein spoke extensively about the moral obligation of scientists to push their information into the policy,” he said. “It’s part of who I am.”And the world is fortunate to have you and your important life-saving work. …
Feds ‘not interested’ in investing in LNG facilities: energy minister by Stephanie Ha, Senior producer, CTV Question Period, March 31, 2024, CTV News
Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says the federal government is “not interested” in subsidizing future liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, including the electrification of projects currently in the works.
In an interview with CTV Question Period host Vassy Kapelos airing on Sunday, Wilkinson said those investments are up to the private sector.It’s about time the federal gov’t grew some Cahones and said no to social assistance to this massive multi billion dollar profit making industry.
“The government is opposed to using government money to fund inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We’re the first country in the world to actually do that. We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities. That’s the role of the private sector. They need to assess the business case and make the investments,” said Wilkinson.
The minister’s comments come just days after Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis exclusively told CTV Question Period that Greece would “of course” be interested in purchasing Canada’s LNG if the resource was available.
RELATED STORIES
- B.C. First Nation and Western LNG partner to purchase natural gas pipeline project
- Greece would ‘absolutely’ be interested in purchasing Canadian LNG: Greek PM
- N.B. Premier Higgs tells Ottawa to replace carbon tax with LNG exportsTerrible plan that will escalate deadly pollution and profit-raping by the oil and gas industry, while taking from the public purse to enrich the rich
“We are a big entry point for LNG, not just for the Greek market, but also for the Balkans, for Eastern Europe,” Mitsotakis said. “Theoretically, we could even supply Ukraine.”
When asked whether Canada could be an ideal partner in that, Mitsotakis said “absolutely.”
“Canada is a country with which we share so many values,” he said, pointing to his country’s alignment with Canada on several geopolitical issues, including Ukraine and the Israel‘s genocide of Palestinians and stealing their land and resource (which must be frac’d)-Hamas war.
Germany and Japan have also voiced interest in purchasing Canada’s LNG. But in August 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he wasn’t sold on the idea of LNG exports being part of Canada’s long-term plan when it comes to becoming a reliable supplier of clean energy to Europe.
“We are in a situation in the short-term, where we will do what we can to contribute to the global supply of energy by increasing our capacities … and explore ways to see if it makes sense to export LNG, and if there’s a business case for it, to export LNG directly to Europe,” Trudeau said.
Whether Canada can and should plan to export to European countries in the future has been an ongoing political debate for years. Supporters of LNG argue the energy source can play a key part in working towards a lower-carbon future. But environmental critics are concerned the expansion of LNG will prolong the use of fossil fuels.
On Thursday, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs testified before a House of Commons committee meeting and made a plea to Ottawa to export LNG to Europe to replace the federal carbon tax. What a foolish politician, no wonder, Higgs is ex Irving Oil!Last year, Repsol decided against developing a LNG terminal in Saint John due to the associated costs.
Wilkinson says New Brunswick can move forward on its own if it wants to ship LNG to Europe.It for sure won’t because the oil and gas industry hates losing money, and LNG is guaranteed to lose money, billions and billions of it.
“Certainly Premier Higgs, who has gas resources in New Brunswick, if he chooses to develop them, could look to actually develop a project that could ship LNG to Europe, but obviously that would need to be done in a manner that’s consistent with New Brunswick’s climate plan,” said Wilkinson.
Any future LNG projects would need to meet Canada’s 2030 climate goals, which includes a target to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by at least 75 per cent from 2012 levels by 2030. Wilkinson says meeting that reduction target will require LNG production to rely on clean electricity.
“You have to do a lot to reduce emissions of methane in the upstream and we’re bringing in place regulations to require 75 per cent reductions. You have to actually, by using electricity, clean electricity. You can’t just burn toxic radioactive frac’dnatural gas in order to liquefy, or the carbon footprint that you leave is far too large,” Wilkinson said.
Even if LNG used “clean” electricity, it’s still dreadfully toxic polluting frac’d gas that harms many and worse, permanently removes water from the hydrogeological cycle, rendering it inaccessible to reuse. Water is much more valuable than gas or LNG or oil, and much more important. Water is needed to survive life; oil, gas, LNG and frac are not. And, LNG ships will burn one hell of a lot polluting fossil fuels. LNG is pure yes indeed, pure stupidity.
When asked by Kapelos whether he is ideologically opposed to exporting LNG as a resource, Wilkinson pointed to projects moving forward in Western Canada, but reiterated the importance of projects meeting climate commitments.
“We support the work that can be done to displace heavier hydrocarbons, but it’s got to be within a frame that fits with respect to the commitments we and others have made,” Wilkinson said.
According to Natural Resources Canada, there are currently eight LNG export projects “in various stages of development across Canada.” The Shell-led LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C. will be Canada’s first large-scale LNG export facility and is aiming for first exports by 2025 to Asian markets.Wanna bet none of these projects will reach completion without massive billions in corporate welfare from the public purse? LNG is uneconomical polluting stupidity. I believe industry and dirty politicians pimp LNG because it’s a fabulously evil money laundering tool to steal from ordinary citizens to enrich the rich.
With files from CTV News’ Parliamentary Bureau reporter Spencer Van Dyk and CTV News Senior Digital Parliamentary Reporter Rachel Aiello
Refer also to:
2023: Wise! Republic of Ireland Planning Board says no to unclean unnatural frac’d LNG
2021: Hello Pieridae, Are you watching? Another LNG project bites the-damning-environmental-report dust
2020: Thank you Anthony Ingraffea and Robert Howarth!
“Since I’ve been alive, the gas industry has been screwing the American public both ways: They’ve been forcing the government to subsidize them through American taxpayers dollars and they’ve been taking private individuals investment money,” Ingraffea said.
2013: Oil and gas industry seeks 2 billion-dollar tax break to lure LNG plants