• 4 minutes China 2019 - Orwell was 35 years out
  • 7 minutes Wonders of US Shale: US Shale Benefits: The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018
  • 11 minutes Trump will capitulate on the trade war
  • 14 minutes Glory to Hong Kong
  • 36 mins Bloomberg: shale slowing. Third wave of shale coming.
  • 1 hour ABC of Brexit, economy wise, where to find sites, links to articles ?
  • 2 hours 5 Tweets That Change The World?
  • 4 hours Spain Is On The Edge...Clashes Between Catalonia And "Madrid"
  • 1 hour Yesterday Angela Merkel stopped Trump technology war on China – the moral of the story is do not eavesdrop on ladies with high ethical standards
  • 2 hours PETROLEUM for humanity 
  • 1 hour Shale Magic: SABIC, ExxonMobil break ground on US Gulf Coast petrochemical project
  • 6 hours Boring! See Ya Clowns, And Have Fun In Germany
  • 15 hours The Mysterious Iranian Tanker
  • 1 hour Crazy Stories From Round The World
  • 3 hours DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING
  • 3 hours How The US Quietly Lost The 1st Amendment
  • 2 hours Climate Protesters Blocking Roads etc...

Climate Crusaders Aren’t Buying Natural Gas Propaganda

LNG terminal

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
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play