Latest news with #LiquidNaturalGas
DW
18 hours ago
- Politics
- DW
What is Liquified Natural Gas? – DW – 07/14/2025
Louisiana is the latest US state to label LNG as "green" energy. But how can a fossil fuel that emits many planet-heating greenhouse gases be clean? The Gulf Coast state of Louisiana, home to the largest liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility in the US, has recently rebranded the fossil fuel as "green" energy. It is the fourth Republican majority state after Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee to have taken this step and comes as US President Donald Trump rolls back renewable energy subsidies and incentives in favor of oil and gas. The US is the world's biggest exporter of LNG, much of which has been shipped to Europe since 2022, when Russian gas supply was slashed following the invasion of Ukraine. That hasn't stopped the European Union from also classifying natural gas-powered electricity, now sourced largely from imported LNG, as green energy in some contexts. The reasoning is that it is a more sustainable way to transition to renewables like solar and wind since it has a lower carbon footprint than coal. But critics point to a leaky and energy-intensive supply chain that releases a lot of planet-heating methane into the atmosphere. Though it also contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butane and nitrogen, Liquid Natural Gas is more than 90% methane. Methane accumulates in the atmosphere for only around 12 years, as opposed to CO2 that persists for centuries, but it has an outsized impact on the climate. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video For one thing, LNG is around 85 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period. Scientists estimate that while methane only accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 — the beginning of industrialization — it is responsible for 25-30% of the subsequent global warming. One 2024 study concludes that LNG has a 33% larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal over 20 years, due in part to methane leakages in the supply chain and energy-intensive processing and shipping. "Natural gas and shale gas are all bad for the climate. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is worse," said Robert Howarth, lead author of the study and professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. In the United States, LNG is made up of gas that is mined from underground shale using a method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This in itself is a controversial process, which critics say pollutes water supplies and air, as well as devastating habitat and biodiversity. Once it has been pulled from underground, the gas is piped to coastal processing plants and supercooled to around -161 degrees Celsius (-258 degrees Fahrenheit) to create a clear, colorless liquid. This liquified gas is much more compact, having been reduced to around 1/600th of its original volume. As such, it can be stored and transported long distances on "cryogenic" LNG tankers that keep the gas very cold, including to locations not accessible by pipelines. When the LNG arrives at purpose-built terminals, it is regasified and piped into the existing gas network. So while European countries once received most of their gas directly from Russia via land and sea pipelines, many have been building LNG terminals to ship gas primarily from the US, but also Qatar and from the US dropped by 19% in 2024 from the highs of the previous year. However, Russian supplies entring the bloc in 2024 went up by 18%. That is despite a commitment to phase-out imports from the country by 2027. Natural gas has long been touted as a "bridge" fuel to a fossil-free energy system because it has around half the carbon emissions of coal. This premise has helped governments claim that LNG is a relatively clean energy source. But beyond the potent methane emissions associated with shale gas fracking in the US — the source of most LNG in the country — supercooling, shipping and regasification require a lot of emission-intensive energy. Designating LNG as a green component of a climate-neutral energy future will be difficult as coal plants close and methane becomes the biggest greenhouse gas polluter. Methane is likely responsible for as much as 50% of temperature rise in the last decade, said Howarth at a Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany in June 2025. LNG is also expensive. Experts claim that energy produced using LNG costs up to five times more than renewables like solar and wind. So, where does this leave the decision by US states like Louisiana to relabel LNG as green and climate-friendly? As the window rapidly closes on keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees and avoiding "irreversible climate catastrophe" — already becoming evident in more extreme heatwaves and wildfires globally — Howarth cautions that Liquified Natural Gas has no place in a clean energy future. "LNG has the largest greenhouse gas footprint of any fossil fuel," he said. "There's simply no room for that." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Observer
09-03-2025
- Business
- Observer
With new US tariffs trade war will be inevitable
US commerce secretary-nominee Howard Lutnick has hinted that some of the tariffs being imposed by Donald Trump — the ones aimed at Mexico and Canada, to mention two, — are short-term tactics that countries can avoid if they bend to the US President's demands. Others, however, including potentially towards the European Union (EU), may serve longer-term goals of reshaping global trade and manufacturing. The EU exports more goods to the US than Canada, Mexico and China. Moreover, unlike China, the EU's trade deficit with the United States has grown since 2016 when Trump was first elected. Trump is ever unpredictable, but there are signs that he may wait for some weeks before potentially imposing any such trade measures on the EU and some other powers. This was outlined in the 'America First Trade Policy' memorandum he released on his first day back in office on 20th January. This points to a potential multi-month window of opportunity for Europe to try to lobby Trump and strike new economic bargain. For instance, Trump has previously demanded that 'the one thing they (the EU) can do quickly is buy our oil and gas' when asked how Europe could avoid heavy tariffs. So this appears part of a policy by Trump to ramp up US fossil fuel production and exports to deliver on his 'America first' strategy. Following Russia's war of Ukraine in 2022, the United States is already the EU's second largest gas supplier of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). To date in 2025, EU countries have imported over half of their LNG from the United States. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has given a potential green light to importing more US LNG, displacing Russia LNG. She said recently 'it's something where we can get into a discussion, also (where) our trade deficit is concerned'. The UK government believes that Britain may escape this fate as its trade balance with the United States is much more balanced than the EU's. Trump said last month that 'we have a $350 bn deficit with the EU. They treat us very badly, so they're going to be in for tariffs'. Trump's January 20 memo indicates that his team will seek to develop analyses of persistent US trade deficits, perceived unfair trade practices and currency manipulation among partner countries. It also asks, before April 1, for recommendations on remedies, including a potential 'global supplement tariff'. Any US move to impose much higher tariffs on the EU, as Trump has threatened many times in the past, could badly damage Europe's economy. Moreover, higher US tariffs on China could redirect cheap products to Europe, undermining the bloc's domestic manufacturers. A key further question for business is whether there will be reciprocal moves by Europe and other powers in response that potentially ultimately lead into 'trade war' territory. Trump's political style is to try to knock his opponents off balance with unpredictable, 'shock and awe' tactics. So markets may be very volatile in coming weeks as this all plays out. However, this cannot be taken for granted, as mentioned by an associate at LSE Ideas. As the IMF highlighted last autumn, there has been a big disconnect in recent years between higher geopolitical risk and lower market volatility. This indicates that asset prices may not fully reflect the potential impact of wars and trade disputes. Such a disconnect makes shocks more likely, because higher geopolitical tension could trigger immediate sell-offs. So there is no guarantee that this disconnect will continue in the next few years which could increase economic volatility. In such scenarios, some financial institutions may be forced to sell assets to affect balance sheets to meet margin calls or satisfy risk limits. (The writer is our foreign correspondent based in the UK)
