- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
For Europe and China, importing fossil gas from the United States to burn for power is worse for the climate than using local coal, because it produces about a third more emissions, a new study in Energy Science and Engineering has found.
While previous studies have relied on gas companies’ claims about how polluting their facilities are, the study by Cornell University’s Robert Howarth used independent measurements. His research concluded that planet-heating emissions from producing US gas are far higher than previously thought.
The findings undermine claims made by the gas industry, and some analysts and politicians in the US and elsewhere, that American LNG exports can help decarbonise the rest of the world, serving as a “transition fuel” while countries shift to clean energy.
Howarth wrote in the study that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority”. “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,” he said.
“A far better approach is to use financial resources to build a fossil-fuel-free future as rapidly as possible,” he added.
Destructive leaks
Some politicians and fossil gas producers have argued that gas can serve as a “transitional” or “bridge fuel” between coal and renewables. This approach rests on the fact that burning coal is more polluting for the climate than burning gas.
While Howarth confirmed this, he found that the carbon dioxide and methane emissions generated by extracting gas from shale, turning it into a liquid, shipping it across the world and turning it back into gas more than cancel out this benefit over coal.
The emissions from producing and transporting gas – not from burning it – are about three times as high as those for producing coal. This is because, whereas gravity keeps solids like coal on the ground, gas leaks into the atmosphere unless contained. What the industry has labelled “natural gas” is methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short term.
Images from satellites and special cameras show that gas regularly leaks from all steps of its journey from the ground to the power plant – from facilities like oil and gas wells, pipelines, ships, compressor stations and underground storage.
On top of this, for gas to be transported by ship, it has to be turned into liquid. This process is known as liquefaction and requires a lot of energy, which is usually produced by burning gas, worsening climate warming. The ships that transport the LNG around the world burn polluting fuel and also leak some of the gas they carry into the atmosphere.
US battles over LNG
In the US, shale gas has become a political hot topic over the last few years. US gas production has nearly doubled since 2010 and US gas producers want to build a series of LNG terminals to export it to Europe and Asia.
But in January 2024, influenced by Howarth’s earlier research, President Joe Biden announced a “temporary pause” on approvals of LNG exports to some countries. The administration’s announcement cited “an evolving understanding” of LNG and the “perilous impacts of methane on our planet”.
While climate campaigners celebrated, the gas industry and Republican politicians pushed back, with some making a climate case for gas as less polluting than other fossil fuels.
Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events
Shaylyn Hynes, spokeswoman for the project owner of the Calcasieu Pass 2 LNG terminal – which was affected by the pause – told the Washington Post that “well-funded environmental activists” are “completely out of touch with reality” and “are actually advocating for restricting access to a cleaner form of energy”.
Emily McClain, from the consultancy Rystad Energy, made a similar argument, claiming that “gas can absolutely displace coal in the medium term and long term, bringing carbon emissions down”. Hynes and Rystad did not respond to requests for comments for this article.
Sixteen Republican-controlled US states challenged the export pause and a federal judge, who was appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, blocked it in July.
While Biden has made some moves to put the brakes on gas development, the administrations of both Trump and former Democratic President Barack Obama promoted gas. In 2014, while in the White House, Obama said that “if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”
In Europe, some politicians have promoted LNG import terminals in an effort to diversify gas supplies away from Russia. In January, the Eurogas trade association claimed that US LNG would help with the energy transition as well as energy security.
In February 2022, the European Commission endorsed gas as a “transition” fuel under its sustainable finance taxonomy, in a move climate campaigners called “the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time”.
Elsewhere, Japan has promoted LNG in Southeast Asia as part of a green “zero emission” initiative and, at last year’s COP28 climate summit in Dubai, Russia persuaded governments to endorse “transitional fuels”, a move one Caribbean negotiator called a “dangerous loophole”.
(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling and Matteo Civillini)
The post New study blows hole in gas backers’ “transition fuel” claim appeared first on Climate Home News.
New study blows hole in “transition fuel” claim of fossil gas backers
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to devel