The Biden administration’s pause on approving new liquefied natural gas export terminals was predicated on climate goals, but some analysts say that it could increase overall emissions, given that U.S. LNG is less emissions-intensive than other sources of power used by import-dependent countries in Europe and Asia.
A drop-off in U.S. supplies could force these energy importers to adopt less emissions-friendly alternatives, including a return to coal-fired power plants.
There is also the risk that buyers will obtain LNG suppliers from parts of the world where ships or export facilities might be older or less regulated than those of the United States.
In those cases, the U.S. export pause on new LNG facilities, which are slated to more than double the current U.S. LNG export capacity by 2027, could be worse off for the environment, opponents have argued, depending on how long the pause lasts and where buyers turn to for supplies.
The U.S. has risen to become the world’s No. 1 exporter of LNG following Russia’s war in Ukraine, sending supplies primarily to Europe and Asian buyers, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
For buyers, “the near-term realistic alternative to U.S. LNG is almost always going to be something that is more emissions-intensive, depending on the application,” Arvind Ravikumar, the co-director of the University of Texas at Austin’s Sustainable Energy Development Lab, told the Washington Examiner in an interview.
According to a new research paper Ravikumar published this month in the MIT Technology Review, U.S. regulation, combined with government investments and voluntary action taken by producers, is poised to reduce U.S. methane emissions from the LNG sector by more than 80% by the end of the decade.
This includes new draft methane rules outlined by the EPA last month, which detailed how it plans to begin implementing its methane tax on oil and gas operators.
That rule will require U.S. oil and gas operators to perform comprehensive monitoring, establish new emissions reduction standards for certain equipment, and eliminate routine methane flaring over the next two years.
Meanwhile, analysts also fear the pause could prompt a deeper dependence on Russia, the second-largest LNG exporter to the European Union behind the U.S.
Though the bloc has passed a sanctions package banning imports of Russian natural gas, it does not begin to take force until 2027. Russia is also believed to be sending more of its natural gas supplies abroad in the form of LNG following the throttling and explosion of the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline that linked it to Europe.
Liquefying natural gas is an emissions-heavy process, as is sending it overseas. But the exact impact LNG exports have on the environment has yet to be determined, and there is no global standard in place for limiting emissions from LNG.
Still, any emissions reductions-related advantages from U.S. LNG would likely only yield a net positive for the next 10 years, Ravikumar said. In fact, LNG demand as a whole may well peter out within the decade as net exporters begin to rely more heavily on emissions-free power sources, including renewable and carbon-free sources.
That’s because “long term is where you can credibly argue that [one can] invest in clean energy, you can reduce your demand for natural gas,” he said, “which, as we can see, the European Union is already doing.”
That includes efforts such as the bloc’s REPower EU act, the plan passed by the EU in 2022 in response to the war. REPower EU calls on the bloc to “rapidly” end its reliance on Russian fossil fuel, targeting a full cutoff by the end of the decade while also accelerating its renewable energy supplies.
Russia’s war in Ukraine “explicitly accelerated the deployment of clean energy — so that may very well have reduced the long-term demand for natural gas in the EU,” Ravikumar said. “So 20, 30 years from now — whether LNG can still help reduce global emissions? The answer there is less clear.”
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide pollution from the U.S. LNG facilities spiked to 18 million tons compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to data provided to the EPA and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in November. Emissions could more than double by 2030 if new U.S. export terminals were to come online as planned.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Levels of methane from LNG exports remain unclear, however, though Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this month that the agency is working with U.S. allies to develop a global framework for measuring LNG methane emissions.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has roughly 80 times as much heat-trapping power as carbon dioxide and is estimated to be responsible for roughly 30% of global warming.
