Natural gas: Cut from the same cloth

One of the starkest lessons of the war in Iran is the debunking of the much-ballyhooed role of natural gas as a “transition fuel”—a supposed “bridge” between planet-polluting fossil fuels and clean energy from renewables.

That belief is now in tatters. Natural gas—especially in its liquefied form (liquefied natural gas, or LNG)—is cut from the same cloth as coal and oil. Like them, it is imported mostly from the Middle East, with China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union among the top buyers, and Qatar and United Arab Emirates as the dominant suppliers.

Worse still, around 20 percent of global LNG shipments—like those of coal and oil—pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which the United States has now blockaded. The strait had already served as Iran’s primary leverage in its conflict with the US and Israel, and its closure is accelerating the unraveling of half a century of Gulf nations’ prosperity.

And like other fossil fuels, LNG prices have surged since the war began, leaving consumers scrambling for supplies they can no longer easily afford.

Russia, Iran, and Qatar together hold the world’s largest proven natural gas reserves, controlling over 50 percent of the global supply—a concentration of energy power that leaves the Philippines hostage to flare-ups in the Middle East.

How convenient, then, that oil traders have surreptitiously marketed LNG as a bridge fuel to countries like the Philippines—nations earnestly trying to reduce their carbon footprint and honor their commitments under the Paris Agreement—when LNG largely comes from the very oil- and gas-producing countries that bear responsibility for addressing climate change.

Dominating the market, these producers immensely benefit from the energy trade, while the rest of the fossil-fuel-consuming world happily goes along with a business-as-usual approach to the climate crisis, which is to delay a genuine transition to renewable energy (RE)—until geopolitical tensions intervened, shattering the illusion.

No matter how big oil packages and sells natural gas as a cleaner alternative, it remains what it has always been: a fossil fuel.

Convenient substitute. True, natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide as coal, allowing the power sector to generate electricity with relatively fewer conventional pollutants.

Besides reduced emissions, natural gas also provides grid stability to the power sector (it can quickly ramp up or down power plant operations) and enables the use of existing energy infrastructure, such as power plants, pipelines, and power grids. It’s also abundant, thus it can bridge the energy gap when renewable capacity is low or is just building up.

But the case for natural gas as a substitute fuel weakens under scrutiny. Gas-powered vehicles, for instance, are less efficient than electric vehicles and carry higher long-term fuel and maintenance costs. And as a nonrenewable resource, natural gas will eventually run out—just like coal and oil. All three remain gravely implicated in climate change and air pollution.

So, when someone speaks of a “transition fuel,” understand what is really being sold: a familiar product dressed up in new language. There is no shortcut to weaning this planet off its fossil fuel dependency—and no substitute for the long, difficult work of healing the wounds the Industrial Revolution set in motion.

Short-term solution. One immediate solution lies in fully implementing the landmark Biofuels Act of 2006, principally authored by Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already mandated a gradual increase in the coco methyl ester (CME) blend in all diesel fuel sold nationwide—a directive that not only contributes to cleaner air but also puts meaningful downward pressure on pump prices.

The DOE circular requires the downstream oil industry to implement a 3-percent CME blend starting Oct. 1, 2024, rising to 4 percent in 2025 and 5 percent in 2026. (see my earlier columns: “Cleaner air, cooler planet with biofuels,” 5/30/24, and “Higher biodiesel blend: Countdown begins,” 9/5/24.)

Long-term solution. The long-term solution to ending our dependence on imported oil is clear: dramatically expand the RE share in the Philippines’ energy mix, which stands at a mere 22 to 25 percent. The government has set targets of 35 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040—ambitions that the war in Iran has transformed from aspirational to existential.

A key study found that a viable emissions pathway for the Philippines involves replacing fossil fuels with RE, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. This will reduce reliance on oil and natural gas imports from the volatile Middle East. It calls for an urgent phaseout of coal-fired power by 2035 and gas-fired generation by 2040. (Full study: tinyurl.com/y5ytsv2d)

The same report projects that a coal phaseout would benefit the broader economy and generate more than a million jobs by 2050—a powerful reminder that the energy transition is not just an environmental imperative, but an economic opportunity the Philippines cannot afford to miss.

—————-

lim.mike04@gmail.com