[krrrh]

What if moving baseline energy from coal to LNG is a greater net reduction in carbon intensity per unit of energy than moving LNG to wind and solar? If you look at the stats on CO2 tonne equivalents from the DoE, the US has been way out front in meeting what were supposed to be its Kyoto and Paris targets. The stats on CO2 equivalents per unit of GDP are even more impressive.

Germany has been heading backwards because their insistence on abandoning working nuclear baseload has increased their need to burn coal, despite their significant investments in solar and wind.