Greenhouse gases are global pollutants.
-
Greenhouse gases are global pollutants. What happens in Detroit matters in Singapore in a way that isn’t true for most regulated pollutants. Denialism at the WH affects everyone - but everyone can also help to counter their sins. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/03/us-democrats-urge-brussels-to-stick-to-methane-rules
Methane (CH4) is a massively more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It eventually degrades into CO2 in the atmosphere but until then it traps 100x as much heat per molecule. It is also the primary component of natural gas, so even small leaks rapidly offset any GHG benefit for gas vs coal.
-
Greenhouse gases are global pollutants. What happens in Detroit matters in Singapore in a way that isn’t true for most regulated pollutants. Denialism at the WH affects everyone - but everyone can also help to counter their sins. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/03/us-democrats-urge-brussels-to-stick-to-methane-rules
@SeanCasten Not a very strong argument though, since the US government is absolutely increasing the burning of ALL fossil fuels, and the Democrats are incapable of doing ANYTHING to stop the fascists in the US.
-
Methane (CH4) is a massively more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It eventually degrades into CO2 in the atmosphere but until then it traps 100x as much heat per molecule. It is also the primary component of natural gas, so even small leaks rapidly offset any GHG benefit for gas vs coal.
Which means that any greenhouse gas regulation HAS to address methane emissions. In countries (like the US, and Russia) that have natural gas export industries, that’s a problem; unless total leakage is <3% they are worse for the climate than coal.
-
Which means that any greenhouse gas regulation HAS to address methane emissions. In countries (like the US, and Russia) that have natural gas export industries, that’s a problem; unless total leakage is <3% they are worse for the climate than coal.
In theory, the nat gas industry has an economic incentive to minimize leaks (so they can sell more gas). But the sector is rife with split incentives; gov’t subsidization, tolling agreements that aren’t tied to downstream value and the simple fact that some investments don’t pencil out.
-
In theory, the nat gas industry has an economic incentive to minimize leaks (so they can sell more gas). But the sector is rife with split incentives; gov’t subsidization, tolling agreements that aren’t tied to downstream value and the simple fact that some investments don’t pencil out.
That is especially true for US LNG production. It takes A LOT of energy to compress, cool and liquefy natural gas. That consumes >10% of the feed gas, meaning the impact of any upstream leaks are magnified. Significant additional leaks happen on the ships carrying that LNG to foreign markets.
-
That is especially true for US LNG production. It takes A LOT of energy to compress, cool and liquefy natural gas. That consumes >10% of the feed gas, meaning the impact of any upstream leaks are magnified. Significant additional leaks happen on the ships carrying that LNG to foreign markets.
If you want to dive into the math, I’d recommend Jeremy Symons’ work. The TL;DR is that US LNG is ~33% worse than coal. IOW, if you care about global warming and the choice is between a Polish power plant running on domestic coal or US LNG, choose the former. https://www.symonspa.com/post/lng-spreadsheet-tool-lngst
-
If you want to dive into the math, I’d recommend Jeremy Symons’ work. The TL;DR is that US LNG is ~33% worse than coal. IOW, if you care about global warming and the choice is between a Polish power plant running on domestic coal or US LNG, choose the former. https://www.symonspa.com/post/lng-spreadsheet-tool-lngst
Sean thanks
queston: GHG is not the only bad thing about Coal/LNG, there is also mining and particulates
I would guess that if you added up all the pluses and minuses, Coal would be worse, esp if you consider respiratory illness
yours
-
If you want to dive into the math, I’d recommend Jeremy Symons’ work. The TL;DR is that US LNG is ~33% worse than coal. IOW, if you care about global warming and the choice is between a Polish power plant running on domestic coal or US LNG, choose the former. https://www.symonspa.com/post/lng-spreadsheet-tool-lngst
So now let’s pivot to how that affects US/European energy policy. In the US, the fastest growing demand for natural gas is for exports. The industry - and their shills in the WH - are keen to protect that golden goose. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/key-us-natural-gas-trends-track-lng-exports-hit-new-highs-2025-08-14/
-
So now let’s pivot to how that affects US/European energy policy. In the US, the fastest growing demand for natural gas is for exports. The industry - and their shills in the WH - are keen to protect that golden goose. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/key-us-natural-gas-trends-track-lng-exports-hit-new-highs-2025-08-14/
Europe, by contrast is a gas consumer but not a producer. Historically, they depended on Russia but post the Ukraine invasion have increasingly depended on us.
-
Europe, by contrast is a gas consumer but not a producer. Historically, they depended on Russia but post the Ukraine invasion have increasingly depended on us.
HOWEVER… Europe (unlike us) generally doesn’t view the laws of physics as negotiable. They understand and seek to avoid the economic costs of climate change. They hear echoes of Russia/Ukraine in our Greenlandic saber-rattling. And they use markets to solve environmental problems.
-
Europe, by contrast is a gas consumer but not a producer. Historically, they depended on Russia but post the Ukraine invasion have increasingly depended on us.
@SeanCasten better to say Europe is not an exporter, it has historically had significant (now declining) production in the Netherlands and UK, and significant remaining production in Norway - however this falls far short of demand which leads to the need for imports
-
HOWEVER… Europe (unlike us) generally doesn’t view the laws of physics as negotiable. They understand and seek to avoid the economic costs of climate change. They hear echoes of Russia/Ukraine in our Greenlandic saber-rattling. And they use markets to solve environmental problems.
They have an emissions trading system to use markets to solve problems, and there are real time discussions underway about enhancing the way that upstream methane leaks are treated. BECAUSE SCIENCE. That’s good.
-
Sean thanks
queston: GHG is not the only bad thing about Coal/LNG, there is also mining and particulates
I would guess that if you added up all the pluses and minuses, Coal would be worse, esp if you consider respiratory illness
yours
@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SeanCasten It just depends so much on where you are. If you're within a few hundred miles downwind of a coal plant, probably the coal plant is worse, but if you're further away, then many pollutants have time to wash out of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, whereas most other pollutants are gone within days.
-
They have an emissions trading system to use markets to solve problems, and there are real time discussions underway about enhancing the way that upstream methane leaks are treated. BECAUSE SCIENCE. That’s good.
The Trump administration meanwhile is pressuring them to weaken those rules to sustain US natural gas export volumes (and incidentally, boosting domestic NG prices), science be damned. BECAUSE POLITICS. That’s bad.
-
@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SeanCasten It just depends so much on where you are. If you're within a few hundred miles downwind of a coal plant, probably the coal plant is worse, but if you're further away, then many pollutants have time to wash out of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, whereas most other pollutants are gone within days.
you may or may not be right; I dunno
but I am disturbed that the complex analysis only focuses on GHG and not all the other harmful effects of coal and LNG
and this is a somewhat common thing, there are these complex analyses that focus on one thing, GHG and then ignore other things
dunno what to make of all this, I really don't
-
The Trump administration meanwhile is pressuring them to weaken those rules to sustain US natural gas export volumes (and incidentally, boosting domestic NG prices), science be damned. BECAUSE POLITICS. That’s bad.
The laws of thermodynamics of course do not give a damn about your politics. More GHG emissions = more heat, higher sea levels, more wildfires, lost property values, more tropical disease and more death. If you doubt that, ask someone who spent yesterday on the Mall about their day.
-
The laws of thermodynamics of course do not give a damn about your politics. More GHG emissions = more heat, higher sea levels, more wildfires, lost property values, more tropical disease and more death. If you doubt that, ask someone who spent yesterday on the Mall about their day.
The US should do better. We should not ignore science. We should not put the interests of NG producers over energy consumers. We should be moral actors and leave this campsite better than we found it. We should press US leaders to change and vote out those who don’t. BUT…
-
The US should do better. We should not ignore science. We should not put the interests of NG producers over energy consumers. We should be moral actors and leave this campsite better than we found it. We should press US leaders to change and vote out those who don’t. BUT…
…this is a Next Man Up moment. If Brunson goes down, the rest of the Knicks don’t quit. As long as the US federal government isn’t going to carry our weight on science, economics or morality, it falls to the rest of us - states, private actors and foreign nations - to step up.
-
…this is a Next Man Up moment. If Brunson goes down, the rest of the Knicks don’t quit. As long as the US federal government isn’t going to carry our weight on science, economics or morality, it falls to the rest of us - states, private actors and foreign nations - to step up.
Anyway, that was a part of our message in Brussels last month, and informed why we wrote this letter. May you take it as inspiration to Next Man Up wherever you have agency as well. /fin
-
Anyway, that was a part of our message in Brussels last month, and informed why we wrote this letter. May you take it as inspiration to Next Man Up wherever you have agency as well. /fin
One final postscript: anyone arguing that Europe is going to cripple their economy by imposing fees on pollution should invite their neighbor to come defecate in their yard. Stand up for your principles and help them slash their sewage bills to grow the economy.
