{"id":316314,"date":"2024-04-04T09:54:26","date_gmt":"2024-04-04T07:54:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=316314"},"modified":"2024-04-04T09:54:28","modified_gmt":"2024-04-04T07:54:28","slug":"the-entire-push-to-halt-new-natural-gas-exports-traces-back-to-one-ivy-league-prof-and-his-shaky-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=316314","title":{"rendered":"The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Caller<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

NICK POPE<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONTRIBUTOR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A questionable study by a Cornell University climate scientist gave climate activists and the media ammunition to wage a pressure campaign against the Biden administration to take action against liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cornell\u2019s Robert Howarth authored the October 2023\u00a0study<\/a>, which purported to find that lifecycle emissions associated with LNG exports are far greater than those attributable to domestically-mined coal.\u00a0Numerous<\/a>\u00a0media<\/a>\u00a0outlets<\/a>, including\u00a0The New York Times<\/a>, amplified the study, and climate activists lobbying the Biden administration to kill LNG exports cited it as evidence to substantiate their position before the White House\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0the moratorium on LNG export terminal approvals on Jan. 26.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study, titled \u201cThe Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States,\u201d found that \u201cgreenhouse gas emissions from LNG are also larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 44% to more than 2-fold greater for the average cruise distance of an LNG tanker.\u201d Howarth, who openly opposes the use of fossil fuels, admitted to releasing his study before it was peer-reviewed in order to influence the LNG export debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAccording to the ethical guidelines from several of the professional societies to which I belong, scientists have a duty to provide information to the public and to decision-makers on important public issues when they have access to such information,\u201d Howarth told the DCNF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Howarth\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0environmental activist Bill McKibben was the one who convinced him to release the study before it underwent the months-long peer review process. McKibben himself\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0about the study in The New Yorker in October 2023, touting it as evidence that the Biden administration should not expand LNG export capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After McKibben published his piece for The New Yorker and Howarth released the study to the public, the duo joined a November 2023 press call alongside several climate activists and Democratic lawmakers \u2014 including Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley \u2014 to talk about the issue of LNG exports, according<\/a> to E&E News.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFrom what I am told by reporters and what I read in the press, yes, my paper has had some impact,\u201d Howarth said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0Howarth\u2019s work influenced the Biden administration\u2019s decision to pause approvals for new LNG export hubs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Howarth\u2019s study \u201cclearly was a factor in the Biden administration\u2019s decision to pause making the required determinations required for approval of new LNG export projects and launching a U.S. Department of Energy study of the climate impact of LNG exports,\u201d Steven Hamburg, the Environmental Defense Fund\u2019s chief scientist, told<\/a> Bloomberg News.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House invariably felt pressure from left-wing lawmakers and environmental activists who regularly cited the study in their push to choke off U.S. natural gas exports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Merkley cited the Howarth study as \u201cthe latest climate science\u201d in a November 2023\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Sixty-four other lawmakers signed that letter, which called on Granholm to update her agency\u2019s review process for LNG export facilities to include climate impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, the Sierra Club\u00a0promoted<\/a>\u00a0a story that cited the study and referred to one of the affected LNG export hubs as a \u201ccarbon bomb.\u201d A disruptive outfit called Climate Defiance\u00a0promoted<\/a>\u00a0the study on social media before\u00a0meeting<\/a>\u00a0in December 2023 with Senior Advisor to the President John Podesta to lobby against the planned expansion of LNG export capacity.\u00a0(RELATED: Biden Admin Leaned On Questionable And Misleading Science To Justify Halting Natural Gas Hub Approvals)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The best solution is to simply stop using fossil natural gas ASAP, as laid out in the Climate Action Council scoping plan (Dec 2022). If the State follows the plan, gas use will fall by 50% within 10 yrs. It's time to start dismantling the pipeline system, not rebuilding it. https:\/\/t.co\/UglBTnk0ji<\/a><\/p>— Robert Howarth (@howarth_cornell) April 24, 2023<\/a><\/blockquote>