Stephen Stapczynski’s Post

Bloomberg has done a fascinating investigation into how Japan has become a major funder and enabler of expanding LNG infrastructure. Japan doesn’t have much in the way of native energy resources. No oil or gas, Solar is mediocre, wind is constrained by geography and hydrography while their nuclear program has famously had problems. With such paucity of domestic energy sources its overwhelmingly in Japans interests for methane energy to be easily available from the widest range of suppliers at the best possible prices. So Japanese institutions and investors have become globally influential in expanding the methane industry. They have strategically worked to make methane ubiquitous and keep industry barriers minimised. Hence you have Japanese shipyards being world leaders at designing LNG tankers, Japanese contractors building LNG export terminals, Japanese manufacturers providing gas turbines for energy projects and all being funded and derisked by Japanese banks and financial institutions. Along the way Japan has also become a major reseller of LNG shipments with huge amounts of gas being traded by Japanese companies both inside and outside the region. This focus on gas and LNG goes some way to explaining the Japanese governments aid programs indifference to supporting expansion of renewables and the Japanese car industry infamously trying to manifest a molecule based future with its support of Hydrogen vehicles over battery ones. The risk for Japan is that letting methane interests shape their energy strategy makes them isolated and uncompetitive in markets increasingly focused on solar and new energy finance. The whole article by Stephen Stapczynski is worth a read and also his other deep dives on the history of gas in Japan.

The recent decision by the Biden administration to suspend permit applications for exporting liquefied natural gas (#LNG) has sparked a debate that might be missing the mark, according to Arvind P. Ravikumar in MIT Technology Review. The focus, Ravikumar argues, should not solely be on the #emissions from the US, the largest LNG exporter, but rather on the broader climate impact, considering what the LNG replaces in importing countries and efforts to clean up the LNG supply chain. For instance, US LNG exports have played a role in reducing #carbonemissions by replacing higher-emission sources like Russian natural gas in Europe and not competing with renewables in countries like India. The debate should encompass the long-term impact of US LNG exports and their compatibility with global climate agreements. Research co-authored by Ravikumar suggests that LNG can contribute to reducing global carbon emissions until about 2035, to limit warming to 1.5 °C over preindustrial levels. Beyond this, the role of natural gas depends on global temperature trajectories and its application in sectors beyond power generation. Ravikumar underscores the importance of addressing methane leaks along the LNG supply chain as a crucial step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The US is leading efforts to reduce methane emissions, working towards near-zero emissions by the end of the decade. This initiative, coupled with international collaboration on setting stringent methane emissions standards, positions the US to lead in developing low-leakage gas supply chains, aligning LNG exports with climate commitments, energy security, and the needs of various countries. https://lnkd.in/gVhxn3z8

Excellent, thoughtful analysis of the climate impacts of LNG.

Fantastic overview from @julian spector at Canary Media on the complexities of understanding the pros and cons of US produced LNG exports. There are a couple of "cons" missing (have we resolved all the community impact issues of natural gas production in the US? how does LNG export net out not just in rates of GHG emissions, but also the "stocks" issue of an atmospheric "carbon budget"?) But, overall, this is a very comprehensive and insightful piece. Which of course, results in the somewhat dissatisfying conclusion of "it's complicated." But I think most folks will be able to navigate the points and come to their own conclusions. As a climate hawk, I come down in support of the Administration's LNG export infrastructure pause after reading the article, and not even considering the two missing arguments mentioned above. But those who aren't concerned (as much) about carbon I might understand why they disagree; the issue then is really how concerned are we about the carbon impacts, and for those supporting LNG export capacity expansion, how seriously are you supporting cleaning up the industry (i.e. clean energy PPAs, fugitive methane management, etc.)

I appreciate this editorial from the Post. The federal government, and state governments, have to get rational about energy and climate policy. Natural gas is a pathway for lower emissions, but it also ensures the energy reliability consumers expect. Forcing the US and our overseas partners into unsustainable, unreliable and/or unaffordable energy choices will only fuel cynicism if not outright opposition to reducing emissions. Not to mention giving Russia a win.

We're asking the wrong question. I agree. What is important is not the absolute emissions associated with any given cargo ship full of LNG that departs from the US, the largest exporter of the product. Rather, when the fuel is exported, the net climate impact depends on what it replaces in the importing country, and whether realistic alternatives produce more or less greenhouse gas. LNG is a hedge. "[I]f the world misses that temperature target, and most signs suggest it will, natural gas could continue to help cut power-sector emissions over a longer time period," he writes in MIT Technology Review. #lng #naturalgas

How should we think about the climate impacts of #LNG? In light of the recent decision by the Biden administration to pause LNG permitting, I write in the MIT Technology Review on the key ideas and challenges in evaluating the climate impacts of US LNG exports. My team at Energy Emissions Modeling and Data Lab has been working on this topic, looking at both short-term impacts such as supply chain #methane emissions and and long-term impacts related to future demand for natural gas and global climate commitments. In this piece, I argue that what's important is not the absolute emissions associated with any given cargo ship full of US LNG but rather the net climate impact of what it replaces in the importing country, and whether realistic alternatives produce more or less greenhouse gas. At the end of the day, every importing country must think hard about its long-term demand for US LNG and develop a sound strategy that balances #climate commitments, #EnergySecurity, and the needs of its citizens and industries. In the meantime, the right question the US needs to ask itself is: Are we doing everything possible to reduce GHG emissions across the US LNG supply chain today, ensuring that it’s as clean an energy source as possible for the nations and scenarios where it is needed? Answering that starts with doing the hard work to ensure that the sector reaches near-zero methane emissions by the end of this decade. https://lnkd.in/gSYrH9fq

A very interesting read on the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s transformation. “There is a discussion about whether the IEA should choose energy security or climate change as its key priority,” says Birol. “When I was a child, our neighbours would always ask me this annoying question: do you love your mother more or your father more? And the answer is I love both of them. So I refuse to make a choice between energy security and climate change. We will focus on both.” The IEA’s divisive mission to decide the future of oil - Financial Times https://on.ft.com/3WBO2Ph

🇪🇺 🌍 In 2021 and 2022, a rise in EU coal consumption sparked doubts in China about Europe's climate commitments. By 2023, coal-fired power generation in the EU has fallen to a record low, making up just 12% of the electricity mix. 🇩🇪 🇵🇱 In my latest article Dialogue Earth, I explore whether Germany and Poland, the EU's largest coal consumers, can sustain their emissions cuts. #EnergyTransition #EU #Coal

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, I had to do a double-take when I read the news of your Government's support for an even greater commitment to the gas sector. One of the major pillars of your Party when seeking to drag Australia out of the dark plane of cynical and willful ignorance and #climatechange irresponsibility of the previous Government was a declared genuine and unwavering commitment to climate change action. which included a priority to support renewable energy and a rapid divorce from the unquestionably destructive reliance on #fossilfuels. Yet here we now stand witness to a betrayal of these clear and pressing imperatives to act now, a betrayal to the Australian community, our children, and theirs. It also lands us in the same odious place on the global stage, as a nation that continues to look very short term and with no regard for our collective #IntergenerationalResponsibility. Failing to act decisively in the wake of the last IPCC report is as astounding as it is inexplicable. The overwhelming and incontrovertible science from global experts that underlined in stark relief the inextricable link between fossil fuels, the trajectory of climate indicators, and the expected consequences for humans, non-human animals, environments, and ecosystems, should have been the clarion call for your Government's unyielding commitment to rapidly incentivising renewables and leading the excision of fossil fuels from our nation's energy mix. Your decision is writing cheques that future generations will have to pay. We used to cling to the 'clever country' appellation, but the successive failure of our national Government to demonstrate true leadership, courage, conviction, and responsibility simply leaves one with a dull hollowness, and a shameful realisation of our deliberate choice to be small-minded and selfish. #StepUpOrStepAside #auspol Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Chris Bowen MP Tanya Plibersek Natalie Kyriacou OAM Tracey Spicer AM GAICD Tim Beshara Environmental Defenders Office Parents for Climate Biodiversity Council