The researcher behind the 'pause' on LNG export permits responded to my questions

My conversations with Dr. Robert Howarth are a great illustration of why objective journalism produces better energy reporting.

The Society for Environmental Journalists encourages reporters to exclude voices in the fossil fuel industries. Covering Climate Now, a climate journalism education resource that partners with over 500 media outlets reaching an audience of 2 billion people worldwide, teaches that reporters covering climate and energy should not engage in “both-sides-ing” the issues. These are influential groups and their calls to abandon traditional objectivity are so brazen that it’s likely most of the thousands of reporters who use these resources are supportive of these tactics. 

Both-sides-ing the issue used to be called journalism, and much of my work revolves around an explicit effort to undo the damage groups like CCN and SEJ are doing to journalism. I platform industry voices, people who question the wisdom of net zero, and people who argue that CO2 is actually beneficial. And it makes no difference if I agree with their positions or not. In some cases, I don’t. I have this radical value that my readers ultimately decide what is and is not true. 

When I’m criticizing individuals or organizations on the other side of the debate, such as climate activists and renewable energy proponents, I give them an opportunity to comment. Most often, they won’t respond to my questions, including Dr. climate celebrity Michael Mann and Covering Climate Now. That’s their choice. The articles go out without them.

Then, there’s Howarth

A rare exception to this is Cornell Professor Dr. Robert Howarth. He produced a preprint that was influential in the Biden-Harris’ decision to enact a moratorium on liquified natural gas (LNG) export permits. Howarth has a long history of anti-fossil fuel activism, such as being on the board of directors for the rabidly anti-fossil fuel Food and Water Watch, and his research has been widely panned. The preprint passed peer review and was published this week. 

Howarth has been very forthcoming each time I’ve contacted him, and for that reason, I have developed a respect for him as a person, if not for his positions on energy. 

The first time I reached out to Howarth, I was writing a story comparing the research behind the proposed ban on gas stoves, which was a controversial study by the anti-fossil fuel nonprofit Rocky Mountain Power, and the research that supported the LNG moratorium. In both cases, anti-fossil fuel activists produce research that was the basis for policies with far-reaching effects.

I asked Howarth about a 2012 New York Post op-ed in which Jon Entine, senior research fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University, claimed that Howarth had told him that his research into fracking was designed to further anti-fracking activism. 

I have to say I was surprised when Howarth replied. I had to look twice to be sure the email was indeed a response from this professor and not an automatic reply, like those I get from Mann. Howarth said Entine was lying. He also defended his research and dismissed his critics. 

He then emails about 20 minutes later to say that, though he decided not to take legal action against Entine at the time, the ability to seek legal recourse for falsehoods was much stronger now, and I shouldn’t repeat the claim. The implication was he’d sue me if I did. 

Needless to say, that ended our first exchange. I contacted our lawyers to make sure I had dotted my i’s and crossed my t’s, and we published the story. I included all the remarks Howarth had made and made sure his perspective was fully represented in the story. 

There’s no way I can verify who is telling the truth, and Howarth may have never said any such thing to Entine. It should be noted, however, that Howarth was persuaded by anti-fossil fuel crusader Bill McKibben to release his LNG study prior to peer review so that it could influence U.S. policy decisions. In the Bloomberg article about it, Howarth said, “We need to get rid of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Let's just move on and get rid of the gas system.”

Hi, it’s me again

I’m not sure if Howarth felt I represented his position fairly in the article or he just never saw it. Whatever the case, the next time I reached out to him was for a response to an analysis by Jonah Messinger, a senior energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute. Messinger’s analysis found that Howarth’s research was “riddled with errors.” 

In his response to me, Howarth was dismissive of Messinger’s work with ad hominems about his credentials, and he provided no details as to what exactly Messinger got wrong. Howarth also defended his research and denied that his activism compromises his neutrality in his research. Again, I was surprised I got a response, but I took care to fully include in the article Howarth’s statements. 

The last exchange I had with him was quite lengthy. I had several of questions, and Howarth was very forthcoming in responding to each one. We also had a brief debate about the efficacy of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels. This was for an article about his study being published and a congressional investigation looking into the Department of Energy’s role in the study and how much it relied on it in developing the LNG policy. 

When I wrote the article I made it a point to not only include all his remarks, but also make sure that his response was up higher in the article. I didn’t want it buried where most readers might not see that he defends his research. The guy takes the time to respond, and I want readers to see what he has to say. They can come to their own conclusions about it. 

A sign of integrity

I think it’s a sign of integrity when someone is willing to engage those with whom they disagree. Most anti-fossil fuel crusaders, including Dr. Mann, have blocked me on X and ignore my questions. The reason Covering Climate Now and the Society for Environmental Journalists are so desperate to purge all skeptical voices from the media, I believe, is because they lack the honesty to put forth their political positions into an open arena where they can be scrutinized and criticized. I believe it’s indicative of fanaticism — the ends justify the means mentality — and fanatics will always compromise any values and principles in pursuit of their goals.

As passionate as Howarth is about his positions, I don’t think he lacks integrity. He doesn’t appear to be afraid to have his research and his positions scrutinized. I don’t think that means he’s right, nor do I think it disputes concerns his activism compromises the neutrality of his research. But I do think it means he’s principled, and for that, he deserves respect and courtesy.

By responding to me, he’s also showing me respect as a professional, even if I am in an adversarial role. After this brief debate we had on the efficacy of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels, I thanked him, sincerely, for his responses and told him I’d make sure his perspective was fairly and accurately represented in the article. 

He replied, “I believe in open communication, transparency, and honesty. Those are the traits pounded into me 50 years ago in my early training as a scientist.”