A study from Cornell University released last November suggested that LNG is worse for the climate than coal. Little did anyone know at the time that this study would put the U.S. federal government in a dilemma at a time when the country leads the world in LNG exports.

The nature of the dilemma is of the sort that could put a quick end to that leadership. Either that or cost the Democrats some votes from environmentalists.

The study that created the dilemma was authored by Cornell biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist Robert Warren Howarth. First presented by prominent environmentalist Bill McKibben in the New Yorker, it argued that LNG is worse than coal for the climate because its production involves methane leaks at every stage of the process. In that presentation, Howarth told McKibben that “ending the use of LNG must be a global priority.”

Environmentalists were quick to grab the opportunity as several new LNG projects are awaiting final approval from the federal authorities to begin construction. They zeroed in on Venture Global’s CP 2. If built, it will be the largest U.S. LNG facility with a capacity to produce up to 24 million tons of liquefied gas annually.