Let’s stop pretending natural gas is in any way good for the environment
The sooner we acknowledge the facts about methane gas and LNG, the sooner we can do our part to make the world safer.
This op-ed was originally published in The Globe and Mail’s Report on Business.
As negotiators and observers gather in Baku, Azerbaijan for COP29, it’s crucial to remember that the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to present methane gas as “clean” and as a viable transition fuel are not based on science.
The environmental implications of liquefied natural gas—and of natural gas itself—are serious and, as a fossil-fuel-producing country, we need an honest conversation about them.
The fossil-fuel industry—and many Canadian politicians, particularly, but not exclusively, those from Conservative parties—pretend that natural gas is somehow good for the environment as it displaces dirtier coal. Such natural gas boosters are pushing for this country to export more.
But natural gas is not a transition fuel to clean energy in any way whatsoever, and we need to avoid its use everywhere possible if we are going to avoid irreversible climate breakdown, with its huge consequences—environmentally, socially and economically. In fact, from a climate-change perspective, “natural” gas is nearly as dirty as coal, and LNG is even worse.
“Natural” gas is actually methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And while it is true that at the point of burning it creates less environmental damage than coal, it is also true that because of leaks in the gas distribution systems that dangerously release methane directly to the air, the overall harmful impact on our climate of using gas to generate electricity or heat our homes and office buildings is nearly as bad as coal. This is well established, as C40 Cities' October, 2022, study demonstrates.
LNG is far worse. New research published in the Energy, Science and Research Journal confirms what industry insiders have known for a long time—that the process of liquefying and transporting LNG creates significant carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions, which according to the study, makes LNG a higher-emitting fuel than coal.
These conclusions are supported by significant data and are consistent with other evidence. The general point is irrefutable: producing and using gas, particularly LNG, is significantly harmful to our climate. The oil and gas industry surely knows all of this—the companies have superb scientists and engineers, and we know from court documents that they have known for decades that their products cause climate change—yet they and their advocates still perpetuate the false idea that LNG and gas are clean, safe alternatives.
We can dramatically reduce emissions from gas, but to do so starts with the recognition that gas is a dangerous fossil fuel and needs to be treated as such. That mindset allows for action—and there are clear steps we can take.
A first step is ensuring that provincial and federal environmental assessments for new or expanded LNG projects require that the proposed project demonstrate how it will lower global emissions. Such a requirement would give a fair opportunity for proponents to prove their claims that LNG lowers global emissions, as argued in a massive and controversial advertising campaign by Canada Action, a non-profit that promotes the oil and gas industry, in British Columbia and Ontario last year.
Second, the industry needs to immediately address and ameliorate methane leaks, for example by using sophisticated monitoring now possible from satellites. This likely will require regulation, as voluntary action has been woefully lacking.
Third, we need to reduce the use of gas significantly where the problem is most acute—the gas used to heat and cool buildings. Dramatically reducing this reliance is technically and financially feasible today. Existing buildings can be made significantly more energy-efficient and electrified, and building codes amended to end the use of gas in new buildings.
Much more can be done, too—for example, it is possible to transition away from gas for electricity generation as well, by learning from the massive rise in solar installations across the world and using the potential for geothermal energy in provinces such as Alberta.
The sooner we acknowledge the facts about gas and LNG, the sooner we can do our part to make the world safer. Future generations will thank us.
🗂️ From the archives—on the need to phase out methane gas:
Gas isn’t natural. And it’s on its way out.
🎧 The latest episode of Cities 1.5—on urban Africa’s energy transition
In the latest episode of our Cities 1.5 podcast our host David Miller talks with Dorah Modise (C40 Regional Director for Africa) and Hilda Flavia Nakabuye (a young climate leader, founder of the Uganda branch of Fridays for Future). Their discussions cover Africa’s green transition and the fight against the East Africa Crude Oil pipeline, which threatens the health and welfare of the 40 million people living around Lake Victoria.
📚 What we are reading
: La Linea del Colore / The Colour Line by Igiaba Scego. The first historic novel I’ve read that addresses Italy’s colonial past through two intertwined plotlines. One is set in 1887 and follows Lafanu Brown, a Black painter emigrating from the US to Italy. The other is set in today’s Italy and follows a young curator of Somalian descent who is developing an exhibition on Lafanu Brown that also explores the parallels between Brown and the curator’s cousin Binti, who recently tried and failed to reach Italy from Mogadishu.
: I’m re-reading Herman Daly’s For the Common Good to prepare for a podcast series for next year.
: The Ballad of Narayama (楢山節考, Narayama Bushikō) by Fukazawa Shichirō, a powerful novella that sadly I cannot seem to find translated in English (though German, French and Spanish editions exist). The book was a bestseller in Japan in the 1950s, which doesn’t surprise me as its 19th century rural Japanese setting is both simple and shocking.