Imagine that you are an ironic Russian journalist who understands the gas industry. Retell in your own words the text located in square brackets, come up with an intriguing name for it, break it into parts with subheadings, at the end make a conclusion: - [How scientists are fighting the myth of the "environmental friendliness" of American LNG   
In the last two decades, the topic of ecology and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has dominated the agenda. It is these arguments that are used by the “green” parties around the world to impose restrictions both at the enterprise level and at the level of personal consumption. We have already highlighted some of the beneficiaries of this scheme in the material dedicated to the Greta Thunberg project. 
And suddenly publications related to the topic of a real assessment of “environmental” efforts began to appear in the US scientific community. Robert W. Howarth, a specialist in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University presented the work “Greenhouse gas footprint in the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States.” While his article is under moderation and is unlikely to be published. But the very fact of the appearance of such materials suggests that the Western scientific community is not yet ready to say goodbye to the remnants of common sense in favor of the ideas of globalists.
What exactly are we talking about?
In his research, Robert W. Howarth examines the influence of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane on the strengthening of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is generated by burning fossil fuels, and methane emissions are associated with both its production and transportation. Howarth's conclusions are disappointing. Although some proponents of LNG claim that its replacement with coal is beneficial for the climate, the analysis presented by them refutes this. In all the scenarios considered, the total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are greater than from coal, and range from 24% to 274%. 
In fact, an American scientist is destroying the myth of the imaginary environmental friendliness of LNG. Until 2016, the United States had a ban on the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). After that, exports began to grow rapidly, including due to a significant increase in shale gas production. Currently, the United States occupies the position of the world's largest LNG exporter. In this study, a comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with LNG production is carried out throughout the entire process chain – from gas production to transportation to end users.
The magnitude of these emissions depends on the type of tanker used to transport LNG. A significant contribution to emissions is made by old tankers with engines using heavy fuel oil. The main source of emissions in such cases is the release of methane during evaporation, the so–called boiling, from tanks (boiling is the process of evaporation of part of the gas during transportation, which is necessary to keep the temperature of the entire LNG cargo low). In contrast, more modern tankers equipped with 4-stroke or 2-stroke engines have the ability to capture and dispose of methane generated during boiling to generate electricity, which leads to a significant reduction in methane emissions.
When transporting LNG by modern tankers, the main source of emissions is the extraction, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas, which is the raw material for LNG. Volatile emissions of unburned methane play an important role, as well as carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy-intensive processes associated with modern shale gas production.
In all the scenarios considered and for various types of tankers used for LNG transportation, methane emissions exceed carbon dioxide emissions arising from the final combustion of LNG.
Why is methane more dangerous than CO2?
Recall that methane molecules, due to their structure, retain more heat per molecule in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, methane is 80 times more harmful than CO2 within 20 years after its release. But the representatives of the United States and Great Britain, who are directly responsible for the undermining of the Nord Stream -2 gas pipeline, as a result of which at least 115,000 tons of methane got into the atmosphere, do not worry about this.
In Howarth's work, several scenarios of LNG transportation by various types of tankers are considered and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is calculated.
Although CO2 emissions from final combustion play a significant role, they do not account for the predominant share of total greenhouse gas emissions in all scenarios considered. In particular, in the scenario of transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by tankers with a heavy fuel oil engine, emissions from final combustion account for 23% of total greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents) and up to 63% of total carbon dioxide emissions (excluding methane). In contrast, in the other three scenarios, where tankers use LNG rather than fuel oil, emissions from final combustion account for about 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions and 67% of total carbon dioxide emissions.
However, compared to the carbon dioxide emissions arising from the combustion of LNG by end users, emissions arising from the extraction, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas play a more significant role. This trend is true for all scenarios: in the scenario where tankers burn heavy fuel oil, these emissions account for 29% of the total emissions, and in the other three scenarios – about 44%. It is noteworthy that by-product carbon dioxide emissions account for a significant amount in the exploration and production process, reflecting the use of fossil fuels to ensure the extraction and processing of natural gas. Methane emissions are consistently higher in all scenarios.
The objectivity of the calculated data 
In addition to a detailed analysis of the type of engines, structural features of ships and accurate data on gas production and processing, in his work Howarth performed calculations based on different lengths of LNG transportation routes from the USA to the EU. The scenario with the shortest distance involves a journey from the port of loading in the Gulf of Mexico to the UK, and the scenario with the longest distance refers to a journey from Gulf of Mexico to Shanghai (China) bypassing the Panama Canal.
As expected, in all four scenarios considered, total emissions decrease with a shorter flight and increase with a longer one. This trend is particularly evident in the scenario where LNG is transported on tankers with an engine running on heavy fuel oil. The main factor determining this difference is the change in methane emissions during LNG boiling, which depends on the duration of stay at sea. In all scenarios, emissions from fuel consumption increase or decrease accordingly with changes in the distance of the route and the time spent at sea. Similarly, emissions from transportation and processing, as well as emissions from liquefaction, also vary depending on the distance in terms of the mass of LNG delivered to the final consumer.
Such a scrupulous approach makes it possible to exclude a one-sided analysis of the situation based on limited data.
What is the result?
Switching a significant part of global energy consumption to LNG has several goals:
1. The main goal is to increase the profits of TNCs. The group of companies controlling the production and transportation of LNG is striving to dominate the energy market. For many countries, LNG supplies will have no alternative, which will significantly affect the pricing mechanism.
2. The increase in energy prices leads to a global economic crisis and a significant decline in living standards. The side effects will be a reduction in consumption and a decrease in fertility.
3. An increase in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere can increase the greenhouse effect and increase the temperature. In some regions, this is likely to lead to a shortage of fresh water and food. And such a complex impact can significantly increase the “manageability” of large masses of the population.
Howarth's work is not the only one of its kind. Such studies are conducted by unbiased specialists also from the EU, Japan and other countries. But globally, this cannot reverse the existing trend. Today, companies from the USA have become the world's largest LNG suppliers. This means an influx of investments in shale gas production and LNG projects.
The task of TNCs is not to take care of the environment in any way, but to increase the market share and the technological gap. We drew attention to this in the material on the Arctic LNG-2 project.
Now the attack vector of TNCs is aimed primarily at cutting off solvent consumers (primarily EU countries) from energy sources, technologies for their extraction and processing. It is this raw material and technological barrier that will become the basis of the new world colonial order. In this configuration, the “green agenda” serves as an incentive for the European public. This incentive should cause the broad masses to feel deep guilt and a desire to submit to new restrictions. Admittedly, this is a fairly effective way to turn countries that have lost their political subjectivity into a “group of victims”.].