Natural Gas Is No Mirage — It's Triage

Forbes

31-07-2025

There is broad scientific consensus: man-made climate change is real, dangerous, and accelerating. Addressing it demands urgency and pragmatism. The viable resources available—natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables—must be deployed strategically. Triage, not idealism, must guide the response.
In his Financial Times article, Stanford Professor Bård Harstad contends that natural gas, although cleaner than coal, risks confining the world to extended hydrocarbon dependence. However, by dismissing gas as just a short-term solution, Harstad misses the fundamental principle of triage: stabilizing the patient before recommending long-term treatment.
Natural Gas is Key to the Energy Transition
Natural gas emits about half the carbon dioxide of coal per unit of energy. A global shift from coal to gas could cut emissions by roughly 10%. Replacing oil with natural gas would result in an additional 9% reduction. These aren't just hypotheticals; they are scalable gains that buy valuable time for broader energy transitions.
In the United States, unsubsidized wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Natural gas remains competitive—especially when paired with firm capacity requirements. The market is not choosing between gas and renewables in zero-sum terms. Rather, both coexist in a dynamic mix. For gas to displace renewables, one must assume investors will irrationally ignore the most affordable options, even as renewables become cheaper.
In Europe and elsewhere, gas (and LNG) plays a critical role in stabilizing electricity grids due to the intermittency of renewables. Gas-fired generators provide the flexibility needed to back up weather-dependent energy sources, Benjamin Lakatos, the CEO of MET Group, tells Forbes. He also underscores the importance of gas to Europe's energy security strategy, with LNG helping diversify supply and maintaining affordability and reliability. This became crystal clear with U.S. President Trump announcing the $750 billion energy purchase deal with the EU, which we discussed in Forbes recently.
Meeting Energy Needs Abroad
The gas vs. renewables debate often reflects the priorities of the developed world. For the 1.18 billion people living in energy poverty—mostly in the Global South—short-term solutions are existential. These communities lack refrigeration, computers, and air conditioning. Electricity costs impede their economic development. For many, energy poverty isn't just a policy issue but a life-threatening problem. Ignoring their needs as 'short-term' is ethically wrong, especially since these populations have contributed the least to overall emissions.
In much of the developing world, renewables face limits due to cost, grid infrastructure, and intermittency. Policymakers must choose between a small amount of green energy and a dependable supply of affordable—though carbon-heavy—power. For these governments, tackling poverty often takes priority over environmental goals set in distant capital cities of the developed world.
Geopolitics adds another layer of complexity. Natural gas is now a core instrument of U.S. foreign policy. American LNG offers Europe an alternative to the Russian supply, giving Washington greater flexibility in confronting geopolitical rivals. If the West retreats from gas, producers like Russia and Qatar will not.
A Comprehensive Energy Strategy Must Include Natural Gas
This isn't an argument against renewables or nuclear power—it's a call for realism. Every energy source has trade-offs. Solar and wind generate no emissions but are intermittent and land intensive. Natural gas releases more carbon, but it is plentiful, dispatchable, and scalable. A mature global infrastructure makes it an essential bridging fuel.
Nuclear, for its part, remains the lowest-carbon large-scale energy source and the second safest after solar. It is technologically mature, with robust supply chains, markets, and regulations. France's nuclear fleet helped drive decades of low-emission growth, and China is now investing heavily in nuclear expansion.
Energy strategy requires balancing climate goals with economic and geopolitical realities. Governments must use every available tool—gas, nuclear, and renewables—to fight both energy poverty and global warming. We cannot let luxury beliefs cloud our judgment when it comes to the futures of billions of people. To dismiss any energy source is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Humanity cannot afford this kind of dogmatism. The clock is ticking.