Coverage of natural gas, even in the most serious mainstream press, too often reads like it’s lifted from the fossil fuel industry playbook. “Natural gas burns cleaner than coal or oil.” You’ve heard this so many times that it honestly just seems, well, natural.
An industry with profit on the line has effectively marketed natural gas as a clean, affordable fuel—even warm and fuzzy, forward-thinking, and environmentally friendly.![]()
The point is, an industry with profit on the line has effectively marketed natural gas as a clean, affordable fuel—even warm and fuzzy, forward-thinking, and environmentally friendly. But natural gas has dirty secrets that news—and energy—consumers ought to hear.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel (lest we forget). The “burning cleaner” mantra is a red herring. As my colleague Tarika Powell has pointed out, natural gas is itself a greenhouse gas—without even needing to be burned. Natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal when combusted, but what matters for the climate is that methane, a big component of gas, is released into the air at every stage of its life, from well to pipeline to power plant. “In the US, the gas industry as a whole was responsible for more emissions than coal last year for the first time,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Of course, it’s not inaccurate to say natural gas burns cleaner. But it’s only a fraction of the story. Methane is the bulk of the story.
Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. And even over the course of a century it is still far more damaging than carbon dioxide. As NPR’s Nathan Rott described its impact over 100 years, “It can warm the atmosphere at nearly 30 times the rate of carbon dioxide.”
So, as Joe Romm at Think Progress explains, methane leaks erase any climate benefit from switching from coal-fired power to gas. He points to more than a dozen studies showing that even a small leakage rate can have a large climate impact.
And if you think your gas isn’t fracked, think again. Sightline’s Tarika Powell again sets the record straight, detailing that now it’s safe to say that all gas is in some part fracked, and in the Pacific Northwest, a majority of the gas used is fracked. Seventy percent of the gas produced in the US is fracked according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and it is co-mingled in pipeline infrastructure with conventional gas. The Canadian gas that we import is now at least 50 percent fracked and that number is set to rise to 80 percent over the next decade. We should call it what it is.
But we’ve internalized the Big Oil branding. Natural gas is set apart from other fossil fuels. It’s described by how it burns, not necessarily by the ugly, dangerous way it’s extracted. In fact, sometimes it seems like reporters and energy commentators can barely say the words “natural gas” without also shoehorning in a bit about it being clean. Industry spokespeople say this stuff too—naturally—with little fact checking.
For example, Oil Change International’s report on emissions expected from a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export facility at Jordan Cove, Oregon, got some ink in US News and World Report (via Associated Press). The focus is on the downsides, but a quote from pipeline spokesperson Michael Hinrich is included—presumably for “balance”—with zero scrutiny:
“The project is putting Oregon on the path to supplying a cleaner energy future for our customers. Natural gas is cleaner burning, has fewer pollutants, is less expensive and more efficient than other fuels that are capable of meeting around-the-clock energy demand.”
Here’s CNBC energy reporter Tom DiChristopher: “Much of the new capacity is coming from natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal and is replacing coal because it’s cheaper.” We hear it again in an otherwise down-on-fossil-fuels Bloomberg Businessweek piece lamenting Trump’s climate decisions as bad for business and the climate: “The US is the world’s leading producer of natural gas (which burns cleaner than coal and oil) and is busy building export terminals to bring the fruits of fracking to overseas markets.” In a piece about “clean” C02 capture technology that runs on natural gas, NPR’s science desk correspondent Christopher Joyce unquestioningly repeats his guest’s assertion: “Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner, [Bill] Brown said, and there’s lots of it.”
If you weren’t already, I promise that if you’re on the alert, you’ll hear it again and again, all over the place.
Many Cascadians are standing up against gas plants, from Oregon to British Columbia (Tarika Powell has calculated the likely greenhouse gas emissions associated with an LNG export facility in BC), and many communities across the continent are deep in local anti-fracking fights. Still, the average American may not readily make the connection from natural gas to methane, nor to fracking (and fracking is more often associated with water pollution and earthquakes than climate change). In fact, polling shows that Americans see natural gas as one option on a menu of climate-fighting, clean alternatives, even though they favor solar and wind more strongly.
It’s no wonder. Don’t forget who is pushing natural gas and what they tell us about it. Industry front groups are spinning natural gas as a climate solution. Exxon is the biggest natural gas producer in the US. Here’s what they claim:
“The shift toward natural gas will carry tremendous benefits for consumers and the environment. Natural gas is affordable, reliable, efficient and available. It is also the least carbon-intensive of the major energy sources, emitting up to 60 percent less CO2 emissions than coal when used for electricity generation.”
Chevron chimes in with more of the same, calling natural gas “environmentally friendly” and deploying the same selective presentation of facts:
“Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel, producing lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than the heavier hydrocarbon fuels, like coal and oil.”
Unfortunately agenda-setting leaders who know better (ahem, Obama, Bloomberg) have touted natural gas in just slightly less glowing terms. And yes, not long ago, well-meaning environmentalists did point to natural gas as an important “bridge fuel” in a transition off dirty energy to renewables. Most have moved on, seeing natural gas as more than a detour. It’s more like a roadblock, in direct competition with investments in clean, local renewable energy solutions like wind and solar.
Repeating the “burns cleaner” line while keeping mum about the rest—when the rest is the most important—is sloppy and dangerous, especially from the same outlets that know better, for example because they covered Obama’s methane rules just a few years ago—or again months ago when Congress voted, narrowly, to keep those rules in place.
I’m going to start calling out news outlets on this practice and heaping praise on the ones who don’t, and I invite you to join me.
mike
Well done. This is important information that is rarely covered. The zero sum aspect of energy infrastructure is a concern. Every dollar that goes to these dirty options today is a dollar not going to a clean energy future.
Jim Stone
For your information. The methane (the evil methane) is only put in the atmosphere if it is NOT burned. Since the entire point of the gas is to BURN it, Only a very, very ,very, small part of the methane actually goes into the environment. You are more than welcome to ban the use of natural gas as soon as you IMPLEMENT the alternative. If you do not implement the alternative first, millions of people will die, from returning to the cowboy days. Can you imagine what would happen in New York City if you just turned off all the heat and electricity tomorrow, and it stayed off forever. The entire city would be abandoned in a few months by everyone that has the means to leave. Any one that can’t leave would be left in a world of lawlessness murder and mayhem. No hospitals, no transportation, no nothing. So its great to get on the high horse of how you want to ban the stuff. If you can not propose a solution. Its pintless.
Roger Boyd
Pleas take your propaganda somewhere else, the gas leaks before you get a chance to burn it – all the way from the well through the distribution system. Such leaks have been documented in independent academic research (not industry-paid for shill research). Just replace the coal with solar and wind in a measured fashion, and keep the natural gas in the ground – and the lights stay on! They have in Germany.
David
The solution will be fluid fuel reactors, problem is people are afraid and nuclear has a trillion dollar industry against it, but that’s your solution
Not cheap ff
Richard Bruno
The energy density of solar compared to a natural gas electricity burning plant would require thousands of acres to achieve the same output. Additionally, you haven’t even mentioned the toxic chemicals and materials that go into the making of solar panels and the mining of those materials and what that does to the environment. You need to look at the “whole” process from cradle to grave as to what goes into producing solar energy before you make these kinds of comparisons. Solar certainly can have it’s place but until these device become much more efficient it will never be as good as burning natural gas of which it’s estimated the USA has a 300 year supply.
Al Caron
Hey, human beings produce methane, so what do you propose to do about that?
Diane L Dick
Thank you for pointing out what too many have believed for too long.
If fracked (yes there are other big environmental problems with gas besides GHG) gas was burned at the wellhead for electric generation there would be benefits over coal. Much of the GHG effect is caused by pipeline transport over great distances, conversion to other products like LNG, and continued transport. Coalbeds also release methane, so coal is as dirty as it gets.
So I cringe if someone says gas is no better than coal. In specific uses it is far better than coal if it is replacing coal. The problem with big oil and gas is they want us to use more of all of it. We need to reduce use of all fossil fuels, especially coal.
Roger Boyd
Burning natural gas at the well head would be economically non-tenable, and also a large amount of it goes to home heating.
In addition, research does points to the heaviest emission being at the wellhead (especially for fracking) so you would not be solving the problem. Coal and gas are the same – fossil fuels which need to be removed from out energy system not added to.
George Jetson
If that’s the case about methane being so bad, we better fill in all of our wetlands where natural gas is a by product of swamplands. Yes let’s go solar and wind, let’s wipe out millions of acres of forest to install solar and wind farms because that is so much better for the environment.
Juby
BRAVO! Anna Fahey & GRIST.
Passing on real science and getting it to as many people as possible is our only hope to break the FAKE NEWS of these giant corporations.
Ryan M. Ferris
Even your home natural gas use heating and cooking has some point source emissions. These are less than cooking/heating with wood (for example). However, it is possible to control your point source emissions from your home/office park/residence much more tightly now because of advances in solar cells and heat pumps and Induction cooking. You can now generate the electricity you use to heat, cook, light your home. Because of net metering, hybrid heat pump, induction stoves you can quite possibly avoid emitting many point source emissions from your home energy use. (Water heating is still a problem.) The type of energy derived from grid is essentially out of our control of most of us, anyway. But if you make it a point to control your own emissions, the grid derived energy becomes less significant.
Kyle
How much methane does natural gas produce compared to coal/oil? Sure, natural gas may have contributed more emissions than coal for the first time, but on a percentage basis how much more natural gas was used than coal in energy production to cause it to be the new leader? Just curious on seeing more numbers.
Simon
We need to start calling it what it is — Fracked gas. Even the headline of this article, calling it “natural gas” plays into fossil fuel industry framing.
Endoftime
Oh Gosh, in my local town there is a zoning hearing for installing a LNG facility, please help. Is there any article related to the effects LNG do to real estate properties, my towns people seem to not believe my environment claims maybe i can reach out to them with their bottom line
Phil B.
Kudos to Sightline for publishing an important & very shareable educational piece about fracked methane gas!
Dan
“Cleaner burning” is also about particulate matter emissions which negatively impact health and climate. For example, when natural gas replaces diesel in ships and trucks and equipment, there is much less fine particulate pollution impacting local air quality and public health. In addition, there is much less black carbon emitted, which like methane from NG, is a climate forcing pollutant. It would be good to see more conversation about transportation energy and the climate impact from black carbon vs methane. It’s much more complicated and we all are going to be burning fossil fuel to transport ourselves and our goods for many more years. Maybe there is a true net-benefit, for climate and health by using NG instead of diesel. See https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/rsc/3-8-13/item8dfr08-323.pdf
Jan Steinman
I don’t think I saw mentioned that, for all practical purposes, liquified natgas has a much lower energy content than coal.
So sure, the hydrogen content of natgas contributes only water vapour to the atmosphere, but the volumetric efficiency is about half that of coal, so you have to burn twice as much to get the same energy content.
And that volumetric density only comes about through energy-intense compression and refrigeration, which consumes enough energy to warrant building a new mega-project dam to provide the electricity needed to liquify it.
How does one quantify the farmland lost, the native treaties trampled, the wells polluted from fracking chemicals, and the added ratepayer burden of a $12,000,000,000 project added to their utility bills? These “externalities” need to be added to LNG before declaring it to be “cleaner.”
John Young
Critically important points. “Natural” gas even sounds clean because advertisers have been hard at work making most all of us think the word “natural” means natural, clean, uncontaminated, wholesome, healthy, etc. But all it means is that natural gas deposits “naturally” occur in association with coal and petroleum deposits.
It was originally thought to be clean because it could produce heat and light without any smoke, soot, or ashes. It gained religious significance as an “eternal flame” back when was seen as an invisible nothing emanating here and there from the ground or in caves that could provide light in the ongoing battle of light versus darkness.
See “What is natural gas” at http://www.gazprominfo.com/articles/natural-gas/. Provided by the Russian global energy company Gazprom: “The humankind has known about the existence of natural gas for a long time. Although people learnt to use it for heating and lighting as far back as the 4th century A.D., luminous flame, leaving no ashes, remained a mystic and religious cult of some peoples for a good while. For instance, fire-worshippers’ temple Ateshgyakh, where ministrations took place up to the 19th century, was built on the Apsheron Peninsula (currently, Azerbaijan) in the 7th century.”
If we called it wet gas or dry gas, as appropriate, instead of lumping it all together as natural gas (as distinguished from gasoline), it would be a bit less mystical sounding, a bit less clean sounding.
It would be easier for those of us fighting three LNG export companies seeking FERC permission to build and operate at out local Port of Brownsville, next door to South Padre Island, TX, to deflate the inflated company claims about LNG being so clean and safe and a bridge to a cleaner energy future for the world. Visit, friend, & follow SAVE RGV from LNG on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/saveRGVfromLNG/
Mike O’Brien
Anna, thanks so much for this article. Back in the 1980s when I was teaching workshops on energy efficient building construction, we were able to get estimates of carbon content for electricity from the utilities. For gas the local utility claimed that the carbon content was only from combustion and there were no methane losses in the production chain, obviously a false assertion but we had no way to call them to account. And the gas utility has dodged the question for years, so your research will be very helpful.
Steve Harrell
I fully oppose replacing goal with gas except very temporarily (but this has many sunk infrastructure costs). We have installed rooftop solar and plan to purchase an all-electric car and convert our water heater to electric in the next few months in order to move off of fossil fuels (our utility is PSE, which is still less than half renewable). However, the statement that natural gas burns cleaner refers to the fact that it releases less sulfur dioxide than coal and almost no particulate matter. This is important in places like Delhi and Beijing where particulate matter is causing hundreds of thousands of illnesses and thousands of early deaths each year. To call this a red herring is to (unintentionally I’m sure) devalue the lives and health of people in those places.
Bob Gilbert
Here in NC we are also working on shifting this paradigm. I have been promoting the following:
Fracked Methane is not natural
Its not a bridge when your driving off a cliff
Fracked Gas fracks weather
Fracked gas is cooking the planet
Bob Gilbert
Raleigh
Frank Gibbons
It is premature to discard natural gas as a bridge fuel: 1) without substitution of natural gas for coal in power generation, the US could not be meeting our greenhouse emission goals; 2) without natural gas the extended blizzard conditions in the mid-West and East would have caused numerous casualties; 3) until more advanced storage systems are developed, wind and solar need gas-fired power to provide a reliable energy system
Roger Boyd
The US is lying about its greenhouse gas emissions by not owning up to the level of fugitive methane emissions – fracking gas just allows it to lie about, not meet, its goals. You can get rid of gas in electricity production before you replace it in home heating
Gammareign
“The “burning cleaner” mantra is a red herring.” What you said is goal-post moving, you douche. Mining for coal also releases methane as does extracting oil.
Ben King
Haahahhahha Oil is natural gas you fools!!!