Natural Gas Industry’s Smear of Coal Is False and Self-Defeating

By Gregory Wrightstone

Smearing coal has become a marketing strategy of a natural gas industry that embraces pseudoscientific views of coal combustion as being hazardous.

In so doing, gas supporters give credence to a fallacious regulatory regime of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which erroneously classifies carbon dioxide as a pollutant and assigns health effects to low-level pollution without scientific proof. To boot, a false representation of coal, oil and natural gas as environmental bogeymen is perpetuated.

Perhaps the most enthusiastic user of this foolish ploy is Toby Rice, CEO of Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp., who introduced two years ago a global plan to replace coal with liquefied natural gas. Promoting his product as a “decarbonizing force” in June at a RealClearEnergy conference, the head of the country’s largest gas producer (check the video link above to see his part), said:

“What we would like to do at EQT … is focus people on a really practical solution that will allow us to provide energy security for the world and address people’s concerns over global emissions. And that path is very simple: transition the world from coal to gas.”

Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, the underlying premise of Rice’s pitch rests on the popular myth that CO2 emissions will overheat the planet. The organization we lead, the CO2 Coalition, has overwhelming evidence from top scientists showing that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide not only poses no danger but is beneficial to plant growth and crop production.

We need more CO2 not less. Coal miners could say that replacing their product with gas is a threat to greenery.

Now, the gas industry’s Marcellus Shale Coalition has further demonized coal in claiming that Pennsylvanians have realized up to $1 trillion in health benefits by reducing emissions of nitrogen and sulfur compounds through the replacement coal-fired electricity generation with gas-fueled power plants.

We have no quarrel with the emissions data. However, the link to improved health is based on methodologies of an EPA that has refused for decades to provide evidence for such a connection.

EPA has long trafficked in data manipulation and falsehood about the supposed health effects of particulate matter, which would be the carrier of chemical compounds into people’s lungs, according to Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com and author of “Scare Pollution: Why and how to fix the EPA.”

“The bottom line is that the claim that particulate matter causes death is the most demonstrable science fraud of our time,” says Milloy, a lawyer with a master’s degree in health sciences and biostatistics. “Despite fearmongering for 30 years about millions of deaths, EPA — and nobody else — has ever presented a single dead body.”

Since the 1990s, Milloy has sparred with the EPA over its assertion that particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) is life threatening. PM2.5 was identified as a dangerous pollutant by EPA’s environmental extremists to shut down the coal industry, he says.

While insisting that PM2.5 kills 8 million people annually, says Milloy, EPA has ignored a contradictory epidemiological study by California researchers as well as the results of its own experiments, which failed to produce symptoms in human subjects intentionally exposed to high levels of particulates.

In 1995, the agency’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council rejected EPA findings of health effects from PM2.5 and was denied raw data to examine the claims. EPA also refused to give the data to congressional investigators.

The absence of support for EPA’s regulation of PM2.5 should not be a surprise. In a 2023 study, Dr. Indur Goklany found that mortality and disease rates improved over a 27-year period even as industrialization and particulate emissions increased in five Asian countries:  India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and China.

The gas industry jumps on the bandwagon of demonizing coal to gain the acceptance of the “green” lobby and the politicians who pander to it. However, gas producers are only feeding coal miners to the crocodile that they hope to escape. It’s a fool’s game, as should be evident by the environmental extremists’ regular targeting of gas operations.

A better approach would be for gas and coal interests to stand together for their industries and the immense good that hydrocarbons have done for the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when coal first fueled steam engines. An alliance of drillers and miners could help defeat a vicious anti-science ideology that seeks to destroy their livelihoods and the civilization they have made possible.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy on July 22, 2024.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know and A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.

5 11 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 23, 2024 10:25 pm

Industries in decline, cannibalizing each other.

co2 coalition and cfact fear for their sponsors.

leefor
Reply to  MyUsername
July 23, 2024 10:31 pm

At least fewer jobs means that you won’t have to try to get one.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 23, 2024 10:49 pm

Yep, society is in RAPID decline because of the anti-CO2 and other far-left agendas.

You will always be at the lowest rung, it will just be deeper in the sewer, I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Meanwhile, in the UK…

UK Nuclear.. 17%
Gas… 38%
US wood … 9%

Wind only 3%

Imports, everything else.

Reply to  bnice2000
July 24, 2024 4:44 am

Those French Nucs are doing sterling work. 80% of French demand plus
UK 3.39GW
Spain 2.25GW
Switzerland 1.9GW
Italy 3.22GW
Germany 1.0GW
Looks like a dearth of wind across Western Europe.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 24, 2024 7:33 am

Those French Nucs are doing sterling work. 80% of French demand plus

65% and falling

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 1:47 pm

Always wrong…

France-electricity
Reply to  bnice2000
July 24, 2024 11:08 am

Solar? Other sources?

Reply to  MyUsername
July 23, 2024 11:21 pm

And of course ZERO fears for COAL in China and India. (very little gas used in either)

And in Australia..

NSW 77% Coal, 3% gas

Qld 64% Coal, 12% gas

Vic 55% Coal, 0% gas. !

China.India-electricity
Reply to  bnice2000
July 24, 2024 3:08 am

In total there is almost no growth worldwide, and china is expected to decline this or next year. India will follow and the african countries will industrialize with renewables. Look at the electric bus movement in several african countries. It will be a huge market for everyone who invested in renewable technologies.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:19 am

Yes, almost no growth.

So, growth then.

Almost only counts for horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:48 am

… and china is expected to decline this or next year …

Linky : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/china-coal-peak-hailed-turning-point-climate-change-battle

The global battle against climate change has passed a historic turning point with China’s huge coal burning finally having peaked, according to senior economists.

Double-check the date of when China was being “hailed” for peaking its coal burning … it’s right there in the URL so you don’t even have to click on it …

NB : The sub-header was more “conditional tense” than the extracted paragraph :
“Study by economists say achievement by world’s biggest polluter may be a significant milestone, rather than a blip

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:52 am

India will follow …

Not this decade, they won’t.

India_Electricity-by-source_2010-2023
leefor
Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:59 am

Not according to World data. Of course, you and data are problematic.
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 4:12 am

african countries will industrialize with renewables”

ROFLMAO.. you CANNOT industrialise with unreliable electricity

Your ignorance on anything to do with energy and reality is hilarious.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 4:19 am

electric bus movement in several african countries”

Charged by FOSSIL FUELS. !!

You really are CLUELESS, aren’t you. !

Africa-Energy
Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
July 24, 2024 4:29 am

You’re not supposed to see the true energy behind the transition. Renewables are coal in disguise.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 6:32 am

I just saw a report saying China will grow 5% this year- less than in previous years, but still excellent, despite many problems.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 6:34 am

I think everything you said here is nonsense. Try documenting your claims.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 10:55 am

You can’t industrialize with renewables, most if not all industry requires stable reliable power which renewables are not and can never be.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 11:12 am

And why is there no growth. Maybe investing in non-productive assets has something to do with it? Maybe ridiculous increases in the cost of electricity has something to do with it?

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 12:47 am

Industries in decline, cannibalizing each other.

You mean the NHS

Reply to  strativarius
July 24, 2024 3:09 am

I thought brexit solved the nhs problem – or were you lied to?

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:15 am

You don’t know much about the NHS, do you.

It went right over your head.

According to NHS Resolution, NHS compensation payouts in 2021/22 amounted to £ 2.6 billion. Then we can consider the huge payouts to follow from scandals such as Tainted blood. You trust the BBC?

“”More than 30,000 people were infected with HIV and hepatitis C from 1970 to 1991 “”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69022726

Brexit seems to be on your mind. You can get therapy.

Reply to  strativarius
July 24, 2024 4:58 am

UK governments are cr*p at running g anything.
The Post Office Inquiry is horrific and should be compulsory viewing/listening for every legal UK citizen. Civil Servants making Sir Humphrey look like an honest amateur, in cahoots with the Post Office who worked hand in glove with Fujitsu and Solictors (supposedly independent) to rob and gaol innocent subpostmasters. Something that happened for two decades. The Mantra was “Horizon is robust” Horizon being a computer system supplied to Royal Mail/ Post Office whilst owned by the government.

Earlier this week  I had a response to a complaint to the BBC containing the following sentence:
I have not fact-checked the information you have provided, but it is my view that the validity of the BBC’s item has not been compromised by not including this information.
I have appealed comparing the BBC to Post Office Limited and the Horizon System.

strativarius
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 24, 2024 8:20 am

UK governments do their level best to drag it out – until they’re dead.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:17 am

Obviously you’re immune to facts. There is more fossil fuel being used than ever, and it will continue to increase.

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 3:38 am

Industries in decline …

Technically true, but hard reality means that the initial hopes of eliminating all “fossil-fuel” power stations in the UK by 2035 (/ 2030 ?) have had to be toned down.

Example URL : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/uk-may-need-new-gas-fired-power-stations-to-decarbonise-grid

NB : This was deliberately chosen as something you would consider to be “a trusted source”.
The hope is that you (and everyone else) will perform some basic “fact checking” anyway.

From the article :

Labour is likely to have to approve new gas-fired power stations in its attempt to decarbonise the UK’s electricity systems by 2030, in what would be a tricky decision for the new government.

Nilay Shah, a professor of process systems engineering at Imperial College London and a co-author of the report, said: “There is a reasonable chance that we will need new gas-fired power stations.”

Simon Harrison, the head of strategy at the engineering company Mott MacDonald who co-chaired the committee that wrote the report, added that having a small number of gas-fired power stations available would add to the UK’s resilience, even if they did produce some carbon emissions. “We have to not be purist about unabated gas,” he said.

The article ends with how the new (3-week old) Labour government might react to the report once Parliament returns from its summer recess.

The report is likely to find some strong support in government: the committee of the National Engineering Policy Council, put together and led by the Royal Academy of Engineering and which drew up the recommendations, was originally co-chaired by Patrick Vallance until he was ennobled and appointed as a science minister by Keir Starmer in one of his first acts as prime minister.

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are taking immediate action implementing our long-term plan to make Britain a clean energy superpower.

“This is the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect bill-payers permanently, which is why we will double onshore wind, treble solar and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will also maintain a strategic reserve of gas power stations to guarantee security of supply.”

The world isn’t as “black and white” as you would like it to be.

Practical considerations result in the “shades of gray” us pragmatists know we have to live with.

oeman50
Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 4:57 am

“Until they came for me”

The new EPA regulations have the most impact on coal since they have delayed the ones on natural gas power. But make no mistake, NG is still on the radar. And the potential impact of Trump? Let’s not count our chickens….

Reply to  MyUsername
July 24, 2024 6:31 am

It’s not a natural economic decline. It’s more like murder.

July 23, 2024 10:32 pm

First they came for ……

July 23, 2024 10:36 pm

They believe it is hot outdoors.

It is cold outside of the Tropics, that’s why most everybody outside of the Tropics lives and works in heated buildings, uses heated transportation, and owns warm clothes.

The Earth is still in a 2+ million-year long-term Ice Age that will continue as long as there is natural ice on the ground. in a warmer but still cold, interglacial period..

The real-time temperature on WUWT’s right-hand side is 58F/15C. That is too cold to live outdoors with no protection from the cold. In the US the temperature routinely drop below 32F/0C for most of the winter in most of the country.

From Pew Research; “63% expect climate impacts to worsen in their lifetime”. It’s mass hysteria in the developed countries. Fueled by the UN and the media that is probably mostly owned by the rich that are hoing to get richer, I guess..

Reply to  scvblwxq
July 24, 2024 12:55 am

On my computer screen, the temperature is on the left hand side.

Scissor
Reply to  Harold Pierce
July 24, 2024 4:37 am

You’re not standing on your head are you?

Reply to  Scissor
July 24, 2024 11:20 am

Or in the Southern Hemisphere?

Scissor
Reply to  scvblwxq
July 24, 2024 4:36 am

The need to warm is a reason animals have fur and fat.

July 23, 2024 11:32 pm

Bloomberg estimates $US 200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain

Investors want $US 275 trillion spent
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero

It would be much, much cheaper to buy all of the 2 billion households in world air conditioners for where they live and for their car or other transportation. They could probably buy good ones for around $US 1,000(wholesale huge volume price) for each or $US 4 trillion total.

Reply to  scvblwxq
July 24, 2024 2:41 am

Bloomberg and BBC = climate alarmism on steroids

Scissor
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 24, 2024 4:40 am

Even a quadrillion can’t change the laws of physics, but Bloomberg stands to make a lot of money cheering on the effort to do so.

July 24, 2024 12:35 am

Story Tip

From the UK Telegraph today:

Ed Miliband has promised to drastically speed up Britain’s net zero trasition but the scale of the task facing the Energy Secretary was laid bare in a damning report from the National Audit Office (NAO), published on Tuesday.

Officials told the Energy Secretary that a staggering £630m of taxpayer cash has been spent on carbon capture technology that is still years from working.

Not only did they point to the amount of investment at risk, but also stressed that the Government’s overarching goal to capture up to 30m tonnes of CO2 by 2030 is way off track.

Driving this underperformance is the fact that four key carbon capture projects are already years behind schedule, the NAO said, which is without recognising the untested technology and uncertain costs.

Crucially, it also warned that the £20bn of public money set aside to develop CO2 capture is unlikely to be enough – and far more may be needed.

The findings pose a net zero nightmare for both Labour and Mr Miliband, who secured his position in cabinet amid a pledge to decarbonise Britain’s power system by 2030.

Under Labour’s green energy plans, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are being relied on to strip up to 30m tonnes of CO2 from UK emissions each year by 2030 – and more than 100m tonnes by 2050…..

…..Some leading economists take an even tougher line. Among them is Gordon Hughes, emeritus professor of economics at Edinburgh University who spent much of his career working on energy issues for the World Bank.

He points out that in 2023 the UK generated about 100 terawatt hours of its electricity from gas – generating about 36m tonnes of CO2 – with no proven technology for capturing more than a fraction of that amount.

He said: “The target of capturing 20-30m tonnes of CO2 by 2030 is absurd and always has been.

“Over the next decade conventional carbon capture will be little more than an experimental technology. I don’t know what will happen in the 2040s and there is a small probability that CCS might be viable by then but the history of the last 15 years suggests that the chances are really very low.

“To be blunt, CCUS is like a lot of the plans for net zero – just a series of technically and economically illiterate fantasies designed to avoid the reality that reaching such a target is probably infeasible and is certainly ruinous for any modern industrial economy.”

Reply to  michel
July 24, 2024 2:43 am

Follow the money trail.
Who is getting rich off the naive public?

Reply to  michel
July 24, 2024 4:01 am

“The findings pose a net zero nightmare for both Labour and Mr Miliband”

I like the way that is put.

That’s right, it’s a “Net Zero Nightmare” for those trying to implement it, and for those trying to live with it.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
July 24, 2024 6:32 am

CCUS – Completely Crazy, Utterly Stupid

strativarius
July 24, 2024 12:45 am

Clearly a US market thing.

Meanwhile… in a world far, far away

Sunday was world’s hottest ever recorded day, data Preliminary data from Copernicus suggests temperature records were shattered, taking world into ‘uncharted territory’.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/world-temperature-records-shattered-hottest-day-climate-crisis

Not round here it wasn’t. More nonsense

Reply to  strativarius
July 24, 2024 2:04 am

And certainly not around here, either.

A glorious sunny day in mid winter.. But darn was it cold this morning !!

And still remnants of the Antarctic breeze….. brrrrr !!

Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
July 24, 2024 4:49 am

Seems like these folks are not finding the Arctic sailing so ice free either. Rather, they seem to be hugging the coast and burning diesel.

https://alluringarctic.com/tracking/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  strativarius
July 24, 2024 8:50 am

It was 97F when I left work at 5:00 pm yesterday.
It was 73F when I left home for work at 6:30 am.

How does one average those?

I generally see a 10-15F drop from work to home on every commute. 50 km.

Reply to  strativarius
July 24, 2024 11:24 am

Based on actual raw data, or models?

July 24, 2024 3:15 am

Again, I’d give this 10 stars if I could. I’m so sick of coal, oil and gas companies trying to appease the Climate Fascists.

Time to stop feeding the crocodile. Just shoot the crocodile and get on with the business of your business.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 24, 2024 4:07 am

“I’m so sick of coal, oil and gas companies trying to appease the Climate Fascists.”

Me, too.

I don’t like being lied to, including being lied to by coal, oil and gas companies about CO2. They couldn’t prove CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, if their lives depended on proving it, so they should stop insinuating that there is something wrong with CO2. Tha’s a lie.

July 24, 2024 4:10 am

To the CO2 Coalition:

Here is a quote from your material:

“Carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the planet is now very small because its effects on Earth’s heat flow are what is called in physics “saturated.” Further increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot cause catastrophic global warming or extreme weather, only slight and beneficial increases in warming.”

(from https://co2coalition.org/publications/effects-of-net-zero-by-2050-summary/)

With great respect for Lindzen, Happer, van Wijngaarden, and Koonin, you should stop ceding the point that incremental CO2 is capable of causing ANY accumulation of sensible heat energy in the land + oceans + atmosphere. No one knows that to be so. The physics of compressible fluids helps us grasp why any such attribution of warming to non-condensing GHGs has been unsound all along.

More here in a recent comment at WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/08/cause-or-effect/#comment-3937945

Thank you for listening.

July 24, 2024 4:37 am

Mrs Thatcher used Global Warming as a stick to beat (in more ways than one) British coal mining. So they are in good company.

July 24, 2024 5:14 am

Just Say No to Steel, Concrete, and Glass

Reply to  karlomonte
July 24, 2024 6:03 am

Good point. That is exactly what it amounts to. China and India understand this. The West is going insane after all these years of the “carbon pollution” messaging.

Reply to  karlomonte
July 24, 2024 1:39 pm

And plastics, synthetic fibers, food, electricity, transport (other than walking), internet, cell phones, …

July 24, 2024 6:30 am

A better approach would be for gas and coal interests to stand together for their industries and the immense good that hydrocarbons have done for the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when coal first fueled steam engines. An alliance of drillers and miners could help defeat a vicious anti-science ideology that seeks to destroy their livelihoods and the civilization they have made possible.

I’d add the forest industries. Wood is a great raw material. The greens want to end forestry. What will replace wood, I ask them. I don’t get any replies.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 24, 2024 1:43 pm

The climate deluded think wood comes from Home Depot, that electricity comes from outlets, and food comes from the supermarket.

Their delusions need to be loudly revealed to them by all of these industries. And every one of them needs to stop saying any of the Climate Fascist agenda talking points are viable in the slightest.

July 24, 2024 7:35 am

100% correct. Defending or promoting natural gas by denigrating carbon emissions, which have only shown beneficial effects as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises is like defending yourself against charges of murder by claiming others killed more. Fossil fuel leaders should be explaining the benefits of more CO2, not giving lip service to the faulty claims of climate crisis for which there is no objective evidence.

dk_
July 24, 2024 9:47 am

A better approach would be for gas and coal interests to stand together for their industries and the immense good that hydrocarbons have done for the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when coal first fueled steam engines.

Wait, what? Sure, the natural gas position propaganda illustrated here is mostly cheap shots cribbed from the free-energy con artists, but coal interests (and coal-fired steam transportation and power) have always been opposed to petroleum fuel suppliers. They have always been competitors, if not literally at each others’ throats.
Today’s energy industries are still at it, influencing the publict to maintain the highest price, minimize taxes and fees, cleaning up on wind and solar subsidies, funding both sides of sham court battles, and subsidizing anti fossil fuel protest groups. It is actually quite hard to find a distinction between “big oil”, natural gas companies, coal suppliers, and the wind or solar free energy mobsters. They’ve got the same investor groups and board members, liberally distributed across the industries and around the world.
The best technical argument for natural gas over coal, despite challenges, is delivered cost/joule. The best argument for coal fired power plants is energy density and legacy infrastructure. A public duel between the two using “environmental” arguments is about competition and business advantage; in this case, I suspect this folderal is intended to avoid government fees for licensing.
But to imagine a rosy past where these cutthroats ventured forth arm-in-arm is at least wishful thinking. Rockefeller’s ghost is laughing.

July 24, 2024 1:27 pm

We have coal. We have gas. We have Hydro. We have nuclear.
We almost have pinwheels and mirrors.
Why not primarily use what has been proven to work reliably instead of demoting them to only backup for what has proven to to be unreliable?

Bob
July 24, 2024 3:54 pm

Very nice Gregory. We are dealing with several issues here. Number one the CAGW crowd and all other radical environmentalists. They are liars and cheats, they have an agenda to fulfill and they will do it at any cost right or wrong. Second but most powerful is a dishonest and bumbling government who indoctrinate the population starting with children. Encouraging and boosting dishonest journalism. Funding false science and blocking good science. Doing anything to gain and keep power and control over its citizens. Third Is corporations who will do and say anything and crawl into bed with anyone to make a buck, even if it may hurt them down the road.

What a miserable mess we are in.