Climate Policy Should Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A proposed pipeline project to deliver more natural gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale into the Northeast has drawn criticism framed around climate concerns. But few of those objections address the central question: would the project actually increase emissions?

The answer may be surprising. Expanding pipeline capacity can lower overall emissions by reducing the region’s dependence on higher-carbon fuels. Homes and businesses in the Northeast still rely on oil for heating, and pipeline constraints often force utilities to import liquified natural gas — which carries a larger carbon footprint than domestic supply. Natural gas furnaces emit 40% less greenhouse gases than oil furnaces, and gas-fired power plants are cleaner and more efficient than many alternatives.

Yglesias points out that building pipelines and building renewable energy projects are not mutually exclusive. Adding pipeline capacity does not prevent investment in renewables — and in some cases, by lowering energy costs, it can make such investments easier to support.

Energy and climate policy should start with arithmetic, not assumptions, Yglesias writes. The key question isn’t whether a project involves fossil fuels, but it’s impact on affordability, reliability, and emissions.