We all know, do we not, that natural gas is at least the short term answer to global warming? With half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, it is a natural bridge between coal and the ultimate goal of renewable energy. Right?

Not for all natural gas apparently. In 2023, 170 climate scientists sent U.S. President Joe Biden a letter asking him to reject building any more liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, on the grounds that liquefied gas is “at least 24 percent worse for the climate than coal.”

For those of us who have natural gas in our backyard, like we do North Americans, it is indeed an improvement over coal, releasing much less carbon dioxide when burned.

It may not, however, be quite the improvement we think it is. Producing natural gas results in leakage of methane into the atmosphere, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, about 80 times as potent. (Although it does have a shorter atmospheric lifetime than carbon dioxide.) A study at Brown University showed that a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2 percent put natural gas on par with coal regarding climate impact. Aerial measurement surveys show leakage from gas production fields are often much higher than that. So, even here in North America, where we can burn the gas directly, the climate advantage over coal may be much less than we would like to think.

And then there’s the gas we export. Europe has become a hugely lucrative market for our gas as it attempts to wean itself off Russian supplies. Asia, too, has a growing demand as it tries to diversify from coal.

Exports to Europe and Asia mean liquefying the gas, transporting it across an ocean and then re-gasifying it. Liquefying the gas is a high energy process, tankers burn substantial amounts of fuel, and all along the way from gas well to home furnace or energy plant, there is leakage of methane.

A recent Cornell University study by professor Robert Howarth suggests that when accounting for the entire supply chain, the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is significantly greater than that for domestic coal reserves, confirming the climate scientists’ concern. As both Europe and Asia have ample coal reserves, burning coal would also provide greater energy security than importing natural gas from the other side of the world.

The view of the climate scientists that LNG may be worse for climate change than coal led President Biden to place a moratorium on increasing exports of LNG pending further study. Needless to say, that has now been overridden by President Trump.

Canada has recently started to ship LNG to China and a number of projects are being developed with hopes of us becoming a major global player. The federal government is very much on side. Prime Minister Carney enthusiastically boasts that “Canada can become the world’s leading energy superpower with the strongest economy in the G7” while B.C. Premier David Eby waxes eloquently “projects like this are how B.C. will become the engine of a newly revitalized, more independent, and growing Canada.”

It is very nice indeed to have “the strongest economy in the G7” and a more “independent and growing Canada,” but not so nice to realize it’s based on being an ever greater contributor to global warming.

And we are already among the worst. On a per capita basis, Canadians are one of the top three greenhouse gas emitters among the advanced nations. And we export more emissions, selling oil and gas overseas, than we create here at home. And we seek to export ever more. steadily increasing oil exports and now planning on ramping up our LNG exports. The comforting idea that our LNG would be doing the world a favour by bridging the gap between coal and renewables may in fact be an illusion.

Professor Howarth has suggested the only sensible approach. In his words, “I see no need for LNG as an interim energy source, and note that switching from coal to LNG requires massive infrastructure expenditures, for ships and liquefaction plants and the pipelines that supply them. A far better approach is to use financial resources to build a fossil‐fuel‐free future as rapidly as possible.”