Hmm maybe I shouldn't be so sure of myself then. The comparison between LNG and coal that I was referencing was the comparison between coal and LNG's lifecycle emissions on the basis of like-for-like electricity generation (so it was slightly apples&oranges for me to say that).

I'd assumed that a main engine's efficiency with bunker fuel was awful and with LNG was much better, meaning LNG had emissions as a shipping fuel.

But I think taking into account the methane emissions of upstream production (which varies incredibly wildly depending on the production environment) LNG from most of the world (particularly the USA) will be a worse shipping fuel on a global warming basis than bunker fuel.

Thanks for picking that up.

The cooling effect of sulphur dioxide emissions (which make sulphates in the atmosphere) is a whole Pandora's box that I'm unqualified to open but yes, there's a significant cooling effect from the SO2 emissions of bunker fuel and the 2020 rules change on VLSFO dramatically slashed the shipping industry's SO2 emissions (noting that SO2 emissions have also been falling across the board, and shipping is only one component of that). https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emis...