[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Well, everybody's talking about the big news out of Europe this morning, but maybe they're focusing on the wrong story. Yes, we know Boris Johnson is resigning, but ho-hum on one level, politicians make their entrances and politicians make their Brexits.

Much bigger than that though, with much longer-term consequences, the European parliament yesterday voted to declare nuclear power and natural gas to be sources of green energy. Have you heard that? We mentioned it on yesterday's show.

Nuclear energy, you probably know, does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, but has other environmental issues. Maybe you're hearing this and saying to yourself, "Wait, what? Gas is a fossil fuel, isn't it? Didn't New York City Council just pass a law to ban new natural gas hookups and make all new buildings go all-electric in the name of the environment of the climate?"

Yes, they did. Wait, isn't Europe the place in the industrialized world that's actually leading the way in seriousness about reducing its carbon emissions? Well, yes it is. What exactly is going on here? Is Europe gas lighting us about gas?

We lead today with our climate story of the week. Is Europe gas lighting us about gas or as a New York Times headline straightforwardly asked the question, is gas green?

Joining us now to try to answer that question is the author of the article, Somini Sengupta, the international climate reporter for the Times and lead writer for the New York Times Climate Forward newsletter. Hi, Somini welcome back to WNYC, and thanks for doing another turn on our climate story of the week.

Somini Sengupta: Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me on.

Brian Lehrer: Let's actually start with a political context and then we'll do some science. Now, this has something to do with the war in Ukraine and Europe's desire to end its dependency on Russia for energy as quickly as possible.

Somini Sengupta: Sort of. It has something to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine because Europe gets 40% of its energy from Russia. That's a lot for its electricity and for heating homes, so it's hugely dependent on Russia and Vladimir Putin has been able to turn that tap up and down.

There's a huge concern about, well, where is Europe's energy going to come from? If it actually weans itself off from Russian gas or if it gets cut off from Russian gas, but here's the thing. The Russian invasion presented the countries of Europe, 27 countries in this block, with a really important choice.

Do they use this as a term, as a moment to get gas from anywhere else other than Russia and prolong their reliance on gas, or do they use this as a moment to really double down on renewable energy, wind and solar, and so on. That has been really the crucial political choice for lawmakers in Europe over the last several months. With this vote yesterday, they chose gas very clearly.

Brian Lehrer: Staying on the politics, what is declaring gas to be green change? Because the headline isn't that the science has changed. The headline is the European parliament took a political action, which is what parliaments do, to classify natural gas as a green energy source. What changes for whom as a result of that?

Somini Sengupta: The European parliament voted to label some gas and nuclear energy projects as green, that makes them eligible for cheap loans and even some government subsidies. It has real-world implications. It reflects three things. It reflects the power of the gas and nuclear industry, and the two big European Union countries; France, which has a lot of nuclear, and Germany, which really relies on gas.

It reflects the power of both those two industries and the two countries that promote these two sources of energy to it signals, as we were discussing earlier, that European lawmakers really made a choice that they're going to rely on gas for the foreseeable future.

Remember, if you build a gas project now, that takes a while for gas to start flowing or for liquid forms of gas to start coming into those terminals. It means that those production facilities or those facilities will remain for the next like 30, 40 years. New gas projects it's not something that you can turn on just tomorrow.

The third implication of this vote is that it really makes it pretty hard for the industrialized countries of the global north to tell other countries that aren't big historic polluters like Europe and the US, makes it very hard to say to other countries, "No, no, no, don't develop the fossil fuels," that you have, that you want for your own industrial development. It really does have reverberations for global climate negotiations.

Brian Lehrer: I want to come back to that later in the conversation. Whether it is a zero-sum game like that and a competition between industrialized countries which have been polluting for decades and those that have a strong need to develop their economies. Should histories big polluters, like Europe, get to use gas at all as a transitional fuel or should that right be reserved for developing countries?

Listeners, bookmark that question in your mind, and we'll circle back to it. First, let's do some of the science. When we say natural gas, what are we really talking about? What does the word natural refer to? They put the word natural on my peanut butter to signal that it's healthy in some way and comes from certain ingredients and not others. What makes natural gas natural?

Somini Sengupta: Well, that's a really good question that we try to answer in the Climate Forward column. All petroleum products come from nature. All fossil fuels are natural. We don't call coal natural though it does come from nature. You'll notice that I don't use the term natural gas. It would be more accurate to call gas, the thing we're talking about, to call it methane gas or some people refer to it as fossil gas.

Why methane? Because that's its principle component. Methane is a very potent and fast-acting planet warming gas. It's pretty widely acknowledged that cutting methane would have really fast effects on global temperature rise.

In fact, the European Union, along with the United States, led efforts to say, "Hey world, we're going to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030." That was a big announcement. It was called Global Methane Pledge, big announcement last November in Glasgow in the international climate talks. This is a bit bewildering that the European Union is now signaling that, in fact, it intends to prolong its reliance on methane gas.

The other problem with gas is that it leaks whether intentionally or accidentally. It's impossible to see with the naked eye, but we've done stories and European scientists have done research using satellite data showing where these giant methane leaks occur in the world. They can be there so big that they can actually be seen from space.

Brian Lehrer: You're right that natural gas produces lower carbon emissions than coal, but much more than wind or solar. The leaks aside, or maybe including the methane leaks, is it possible to say where gas falls on that spectrum between, let's say, coal and wind or oil and solar and why it's in this gray area that some people call green and some people don't?

Somini Sengupta: I don't think it's in a gray area. It is very clearly a fossil fuel. There's no doubt about that. If you have an old coal-fired power plant, that is the most polluting. If you have a relatively new coal-fired power plant, that is still polluting because coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel, but you might have some scrubbers in there to temper the pollution a little bit. Gas produces emissions. As I said, it produces methane emissions which are very potent and very fast-acting. In another category altogether are wind, solar,  hydropower, geothermal, and nuclear, which, as you pointed out earlier in your introduction, doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions associated with it, but plenty of other environmental risks and it remains really controversial in some European countries, but not others.

Brian Lehrer: I asked you before about the word natural and natural gas, which, I guess, turns out to be just a marketing tool. What about the word fossil in fossil fuels? You say fossil gas is a more accurate term. I think when most people think of fossils, they think of old dinosaur bones that are sitting in a museum of natural history or something. What does it have to do with energy sources?

Somini Sengupta: Right. They are very old compounds that have been sealed underground and we are extracting them, we, humans, and burning them. We've known for a very long time, there's no debate, this is settled science, that the combustion of fossil fuel produces planet-warming gases.

Brian Lehrer: There it is, folks, fossil. Now you know why they call it fossil fuels if you didn't know before. Listeners, we can take your questions, comments, and experiences on our climate story of the week on Europe declaring gas green energy with New York Times International Climate reporter, Somini Sengupta, who's also the lead writer on The Times Climate Forward newsletter. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @brianlehrer.

Somini, if we accept that Europe really does want to end global warming, is the reason to use gas as a transitional fuel because it's so much easier to build up a gas infrastructure quickly or affordably to get away from Russia than it is to build that much wind or solar supply?

Somini Sengupta: That's a really good question. It takes a while. It is not inexpensive to build, say, an import terminal that can take gas, liquefied forms of gas. It does take time, it is not inexpensive. Wind and solar also can take time. Wind and solar can also get some pushback from local communities. This is a pretty difficult choice for the 27 countries of the European Union because, unlike the United States, Europe has a really ambitious climate law in its books.

No matter who becomes President of the European Union, the law says all of the countries of Europe as a whole must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. That's a lot by 2030. This is a real dilemma. How is Europe going to meet its own climate goals, its own climate law, rather, while guaranteeing electricity and heat for its citizens? That's the dilemma for European lawmakers and, of course, nuclear remains controversial in some countries, but not all.

Brian Lehrer: What are Europe's environmentalists saying? Do they have any sympathy for the dilemma you just laid out and the competing pressures here?

Somini Sengupta: Well, this proposal to label gas and nuclear energy green has been roundly criticized by a whole host of environmental groups and some others who are not traditional environmental groups as my colleague in Brussels, Matina, has pointed out. The issue here is that there is also the issue of how much energy Europeans are using.

One way to get around this, many environmental advocates say, is to very quickly install electric heat pumps, for example, or to insulate homes and to really invest in energy efficiency programs. There are other ways of getting around this problem, the environmental advocates say. It is undeniable that there's an immediate need, because if Russia cuts off gas supply before the winter, that is going to be a huge problem for European lawmakers, obviously, because practically much of the heating in Europe, with the exception of some countries comes from gas, and the lion's share of that comes from Russia.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, so speed matters right now because of the war and the politics between Russia and Europe. This has another implication, it seems to me. If a new gas infrastructure is being built up quickly, I assume there will be resistance from producers to taking it down even when Russia is out of the way.

Are the cheaper loans and subsidies that are now being made available for natural gas by declaring a green temporary? Do they phase out in some way after a while to give more advantage to true renewables when that is seen as economically realistic?

Somini Sengupta: That's unclear. When we interviewed the European vice president in charge of the Green Transition, Frans Timmermans, a few weeks ago, he said, "Well, the contract we are entering into with gas producers, we're trying to limit it for, well, 10 to 15 years, but these are negotiations, right? Gas suppliers are going to want longer-term contracts. That's going to be difficult. Those who build and fund new gas infrastructure will most certainly want to make their money back."

It should be noted that the United States which is the world's largest gas producer at the moment, the United States has really been trying to help the European Union get off of Russian gas. It's got limited ability to do that. President Biden has asked American gas producers to maximize the output of liquefied gas. This is like a form of gas that you can put in a ship and it goes across the ocean. Europe doesn't have import terminals that can take in that much gas in all different parts of Europe. Some parts do, other parts don't. There's an issue there.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we'll go to your calls in just a minute with Somini Sengupta from The Times on our climate story of the week about the European Parliament yesterday voting to declare nuclear power and gas to be sources of green energy, eligible for subsidies and cheaper loans. Rayhaan in Manhattan, we see you, Stephen in West Caldwell, we see you,

Are there implications for the United States? The US has become an energy exporter, right? The old notion of the US dependent on the Middle East is breaking down over time. This is, in fact, a local debate in New York state right now. We have a governor's race on, where there's a ban on fracking for gas in New York State that Andrew Cuomo imposed a number of years ago.

The Republican candidate Lee Zeldin, is running on restoring fracking for natural gas to New York State. The incumbent Democrat, Kathy Hochul, wants to keep the ban. This is a local issue even at the level of New York State. What about larger implications for what Europe is doing here for the US? Either setting a precedent that puts pressure on this country to be more lenient on gas to view it as green, or anything else?

Somini Sengupta: Yes. There is a EU-US energy partnership that was announced several weeks ago. In it, the United States says it will try to help Europe meet its demand for non-Russian gas. It promises a fairly significant amount of gas for Europe. As I said, it still needs countries in Europe to build the kind of infrastructure that they need to receive American gas.

There's still expansion of American gas export terminals, primarily in the Permian Basin. Beyond United States gas, there are other countries that produce gas; Australia, Qatar, and most interestingly, there's a lot of gas reserves, a lot of gas potential in several countries in Africa; Angola, Senegal, Nigeria. European lawmakers, European leaders have gone down to those countries trying to ink deals for those African gas producers to help Europe meet its gas needs.

Look out for, in the coming months, debate about whether those African countries should develop the gas that they have under their land and in their seas and whether that gas should be used for their own economic development and industrial growth, or whether it should be exported to Europe for a good price.

This is all very interesting and set off by the Russian invasion of Europe, but really it's unclear to me whether the Russian invasion is the reason that the world as a whole is not reducing its dependence on fossil fuels or is it being used as an excuse not to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, that is debatable.

Brian Lehrer: Which, I guess, brings us to the question that I opened with, is the European Parliament gas lighting us about gas, or do they believe what they're saying?

Somini Sengupta: That is a question that Europeans will continue to debate. Certainly, among climate advocates, this seems to- and many analysts I've spoken to who are not necessarily activists, this does seem to fly in the face of some of Europe's other commitments, namely its commitment to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, its commitment to install heat pumps, its commitment to expand renewable energy, it's commitment to reduce and restrict the sales of conventional internal combustion engine cars.

There's no question that Europe has taken climate action very seriously but also faces this very urgent and short-term need to find alternate sources of energy.

Brian Lehrer: Rayhaan in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Rayhaan: Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to say that I think the recession played a part in their decision. Also, I think the infrastructure to deal with green energy, for example, in recycling, electronic batteries in these electronic vehicles are not even developed in the industrialized world. It costs trillions of dollars. I think it's would be unfair for the industrialized world to ask the developing world to give up fossil fuels because they became industrialized by using fossil fuels in the first place.

Brian Lehrer: Rayhaan, thank you very much. That gets back, Somini, to the politics of it and the international politics of it. You referred to this just a minute ago. Should history's big polluters like Europe get to use gas at all as a transitional fuel, or should that right be reserved for developing countries? You report that, as part of Europe's transition from coal to gas, they're courting African countries, you mentioned a few before, Angola, Nigeria, for example, to send their liquified natural gas on ships to heat and power European homes.

Does that process deny something to the people who live in Africa?

Somini Sengupta: That's a decision for African countries to make and for African citizens to decide. Look, I think what your caller was hinting at is one of the most important fault lines in the global climate negotiations. Yes, it is true that industrialized rich countries in the global north burned a lot of coal, extracted a lot of oil, continue to do that. It's their greenhouse gas emissions that have already warmed the planet by over 1 degree Celsius.

Add to that China's greenhouse gas emissions, which have grown for the last 30 years exceptionally fast, which makes China the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions at the moment. If you look at the last century, if you look at all of the greenhouse gas emissions that have been produced, there's no question that the US accounts for the history's largest emitter followed by Britain and the other industrialized countries of Europe.

Yes, the argument that you often hear from big emerging countries is we should be allowed to burn coal and oil and gas so that we can industrialize just like you, but I have to say that is not what you hear across the board from countries in the Global South. Here's why, because they and their people, their citizens are feeling, very acutely, the consequences of this warming.

Whether it's sea-level rise, threatening their coastal cities, whether it's extreme heat, whether it's erratic rainfall, and flooding so severe that it destroys their crops, these are very serious issues for countries in the Global South. One of the most contentious arguments that will be heard in the next global climate negotiations is what is the Global South owed for the climate risks, the climate consequences that their people are suffering already?

Stay tuned. We will cover this extensively as we have.

Brian Lehrer: Steve in West Caldwell, you are on WNYC. Hi, Steve.

Steve: Hi, good morning. I wanted to touch on the issue that you brought up initially about why it's called natural gas. My understanding is that natural gas comes right out of the well, and the other type of gas that was used for many, many years was manufactured gas, which is manufactured from coal and the utility companies burned coal in retorts and recovered the gas and then piped it into homes. That was a popular way to light and cook from the mid-1800s until about the 1960s.

I think it was early '60s, '62 when a pipeline was installed directly from Texas to the Northeast area. That manufactured gas was no longer needed. The issue is that the manufacturing process created a lot of nasty residual chemicals that are the source of groundwater and soil contamination. The utility companies have been dealing with that over the last 25 years with expensive cleanups, but I believe that that's why they call it natural gas because it's not manufactured gas.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for that history very interesting. Even though it still is a fossil fuel and natural has certain connotations of cleanliness and sustainability. If that's a difference between natural and manufactured, and that's why the word natural got used in the first place, that's really interesting. Somini, when we--

Somini Sengupta: I'm not familiar with that history. I can only say that I think names matter and there are several possible names for gas. I think methane gas is the most accurate because that's its principal component but you can also call it fossil gas. I do think that, for all the reasons you've said, calling it natural gas has certain connotations. I don't think that's accidental.

Brian Lehrer: What's the relationship between methane gas and gasoline, any?

Somini Sengupta: Gasoline that we put into our cars, that's a--

Brian Lehrer: A whole other topic.

Somini Sengupta: That's a whole other thing. Yes. It comes from the same place and, many times, it comes from the same countries. The US is a major oil and gas producer as is Saudi Arabia.

Brian Lehrer: We just have a minute left. I mentioned in the intro that New York City law recently passed that will ban new gas hookups in newly constructed buildings. No more gas heat, no more gas ovens, all-electric in new construction. Is Europe doing anything like that?

Somini Sengupta: Well, I  don't know city by city or state by state, but I have to say, anecdotally, European homes, it's not uncommon to see new electric stoves and ovens. In some places, electric heat pumps are pretty common, in other places they're not.

The Netherlands recently announced a big push to install heat pumps in some very large number of buildings. I think the bigger challenge, honestly, is not in new hookups, the bigger challenge is how to get gas out of existing buildings. All of our large housing stock in New York city, all the apartments, it's not impossible, but it is complicated to switch out gas boilers and install electric heat pumps that is being done by several companies.

There are some cities around the United States that have committed to making all of its buildings, new and old, all-electric to get fossil fuels out of all of its buildings. Ithaca is a place to watch in New York and across the country. Berkeley, Menlo Park, both in California, those are places to watch. I think that some really interesting changes and challenges are coming.

Brian Lehrer: That, listeners, is our climate story of the week, today with New York Times international climate reporter Somini Sengupta who's also the lead writer for the New York Times Climate Forward newsletter. Her newsletter edition earlier this week titled Is Gas Green? Because of the declaration by the European parliament, the gas and nuclear will be considered green for the purposes of loans and subsidies at least while the Russian military rages in Ukraine. Thanks a lot, Somini, we really appreciate it.

Somini Sengupta: Thank you, Brian. The newsletter link to sign up if you're a New York Times subscriber is nytimes.com/climateforward.

Brian Lehrer: Great.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.