• 4 minutes Is The Three Gorges Dam on the Brink of Collapse?
  • 8 minutes The Coal Industry May Never Recover From The Pandemic
  • 11 minutes China Raids Bank and Investor Accounts
  • 2 hours Sources confirm Trump to sign two new Executive orders.
  • 16 hours CV19: New York 21% infection rate + 40% Existing T-Cell immunity = 61% = Herd Immunity ?
  • 5 mins Sometimes I Think Trump Supporters on This Forum Are Russians
  • 3 hours No More Love: Kanye West Breaks With Trump, Claims 2020 Run Is Not A Stunt
  • 10 hours In a Nutshell...
  • 33 mins Better Days Are (Not) Coming: Fed Officials Suggest U.S. Recovery May Be Stalling
  • 16 hours A Real Reality Check on "Green Hydrogen"
  • 5 hours During March, April, May the states with the highest infections/deaths were NY, NJ, Ma. . . . . Today (June) the three have the best numbers. How ? Herd immunity ?
  • 1 day Why Wind is pitiful for most regions on earth
  • 1 day Why Oil could hit $100
  • 1 hour Putin Paid Militants to Kill US Troops
  • 7 hours Where is Alberta, Canada headed?
  • 3 days Coronavirus hype biggest political hoax in history

Climate Crusaders Aren’t Buying Natural Gas Propaganda

The much-touted conversion from coal- and oil-fired power generation to natural gas actually raises the greenhouse effect of energy consumption by around 40 percent because of alarming methane emissions from gas, Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG) said in new study.

According to the authors of the study published this week, natural gas has often been touted as the ‘cleanest’ fossil fuel that could be the ‘bridge’ fuel toward a zero-emissions future. However, if methane emissions are considered in addition to the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, it turns out that natural gas actually accelerates climate change because of the methane emissions in the entire value chain from natural gas extraction to consumption.

Natural gas not only increases the greenhouse effect, it also “creates obstacles to renewable energy sources, prevents a sustainable, emission-free economic system and blocks effective climate protection,” the study says.

The study also slams the International Energy Agency (IEA) for downplaying the emissions effect from natural gas, and claims that the rapid expansion of renewable energies to 100 percent worldwide is the only viable option.

“The IEA, which many governments regard as a reference for their energy policy decisions, deceives us with outdated figures and problematic assumptions about the actual climate impact of natural gas – with devastating consequences for our climate and the economy,” said Dr. Thure Traber, co-author and leading scientist of the EWG.

Related: Bill Gates Says $11 Trillion Anti-Oil Push Isn’t Working

“Existing and new subsidies for natural gas are incompatible with the Paris climate protection targets. Instead, we urgently need more investments in renewable energies, because only these have an immediate and lasting positive effect on the climate,” said Hans-Josef Fell, a former member of the German Parliament and President of the EWG.

Earlier this year, a report from Global Energy Monitor said that booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure around the world—with the U.S. and Canada accounting for 74 percent of proposed LNG export terminal capacity—poses “a direct challenge to Paris climate goals.” To this report, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) responded with a statement saying that “The conclusions of the Global Energy Monitor’s report are factually incorrect. Sharing these untrue statements is unacceptable. This is another deliberate attempt by a foreign-funded activist organization to discredit the Canadian oil and natural gas industry.”

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage



Leave a comment
  • Johana Dunlop on October 01 2019 said:
    According to IEA figures since 2000 coal to gas switching has kept 500 millions tonnes of CO2 equivalent out of the atomosphere
  • thomas fox on September 20 2019 said:
    i have been fascinated by research studies that contradict themselves entirely and which the supporting parties on each side use to argue each their case over a climate debacle. this just puts a dent in the credibility of scholarly research. its seems its all manipulated research no matter tge side or point of view people want it to support. you dont know anymore what to believe. if science is made to be used for political and or economic agendas then it has no credibility. its the end of science.
  • Lee James on September 20 2019 said:
    Phil, I used to think global warming ranked kind of low on the list of things to do on planet Earth. Nuclear holocaust ranks right up there.

    But then it became obvious that the rate of change is fast enough that global warming has become serious. And, warming ties into to other high-ranking issues such as reduced national security due to fossil-fuel dependency, and conflict over human migration, and health and property damage.

    In the very least, we need to take out an insurance policy. This is what President Reagan said about the hole in our ozone layer. He was right, as it turned out.
  • Phil Mirzoev on September 19 2019 said:
    Good photo at the header of the column :))))
    One time out of ten when I would agree with Trump is when he declared the US exit from Paris Agreement. Absolutely right thing to do, if the US doesn't want to join the herd blindly going down the road of lies and self-deceptions regarding what can and what cannot realistically be achieved and what the real fair place for global warming among other no less, often more, serious problems of humankind

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News