Life export ban on clean natural gas

Published 7:08 pm Saturday, November 15, 2014

1. Deep in coal country, pondering future without it
2. Natural gas, wind to take place of coal

One of the most substantive actions Congress and President Barack Obama could take to reduce carbon emissions worldwide would be to lift the U.S. ban on exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). This would boost the economy at the same time, providing jobs, tax revenues and stronger trade ties with much of the rest of the world.

We have plenty of natural gas. We can produce more than we’re producing now. Other countries need the gas, and they’re ready and willing to pay for it.

Where’s the down side?

“Natural gas is an extremely important world commodity for which many industries compete,” wrote Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute in U.S. News & World Report. “It is used as a primary energy source in electricity production, for direct heating in households and industry, as a chemical feedstock in the chemical production industries and even as a major transportation fuel (among many other uses). With the recent advent of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing, vast new U.S. natural gas resources have resulted in a local glut, driving down prices to historic lows which U.S. corporate consumers are enjoying…”

Currently, the U.S. Commerce Department only allows very limited exports of natural gas. That effective ban is the result of energy policies dating to the 1970s, when the energy picture was very different.

It makes no sense to keep the ban now, when the economy could benefit so much from exports.

“America stands to reap considerable benefits,” says Mark Green of the American Petroleum Institute. “ICF’s study estimates LNG exports would generate average net job growth of 73,100 to 452,300 between 2016 and 2035, including all economic multiplier effects. Manufacturing job gains would average between 7,800 and 76,800 net jobs over the same time period, ICF says. The net effect on annual U.S. GDP would range between $15.6 billion and $73.6 billion annually between 2016 and 2035, depending on how much LNG was exported.”

Another good reason to lift the ban is the issue of carbon emissions. Natural gas burns more cleanly than coal — in fact, the switch to natural gas from coal is why our own carbon emissions are down dramatically in the U.S.

LNG exports could have the same effect elsewhere.

“With effective policies and standards in place, natural gas can help displace coal while complementing lower-carbon, renewable energy sources,” the World Resources Institute reported last year.

There are concerns, of course, that the process of extracting natural gas, liquefying and shipping it make natural gas less “clean” than it might seem.

But that’s making the perfect the enemy of the good. Environmentalists will never love natural gas, because it’s not an emissions-free source of energy. At the same time, they often work to block the only true emissions-free source — nuclear power.

What’s left? “Green energy solutions” that aren’t yet capable of providing the power the industrial world requires.

Unless and until such “solutions” are solutions indeed, natural gas is a proven, cleaner source of power.

Dropping the export ban on LNG will bring jobs and environmental benefits.