Greenhouse Gas Estimates of LNG Exports Must Include Global Market Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conduct a consequential lifecycle analysis (LCA) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from North American liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects, estimating the change in global natural gas and coal use resulting from the market effects of increased LNG trade. We estimate that building a 2.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) LNG export facility, equivalent to one of the larger LNG projects under development in the US today, will change global GHG emissions −39 to 11 Mt CO2e (90% range) with a median value of −8 Mt CO2e. Previous attributional LCA methods for electricity generation with LNG replacing coal find a much larger benefit of LNG exports, a median value of −36 Mt CO2e for this size project. The smaller decrease in GHGs is attributable to higher domestic coal use and a smaller decrease in international coal use than assumed by previous methods. Net global emission change estimates are most sensitive to the uncertainty in economic elasticities outside of North America. Given the scale of planned and proposed LNG export terminals, project regulators and policymakers must account for market effects to more accurately estimate the global net change in GHG emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".