In yet another strike against the fossil fuel industry, President Biden made a call to temporarily freeze proposed liquified natural gas (LNG) projects “until the Department of Energy can update the underlying analyses for authorizations.” LNG exports will be paused indefinitely while environmental studies are conducted, which could take more than a year to complete.
In essence, the administration has made a major decision before producing the data or evidence necessary to justify this decision. And it has once again caved to the whims of the environmentalist agenda which claims LNG projects could potentially impact climate change. Activists had written to the administration in December asserting that LNG emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
The U.S. has been significantly increasing its LNG export capacity over the last decade; the cooled and liquified form makes it easy and safe to transport. We even became the largest exporter in December of 2023.
But that has all been interrupted.
This unprecedented maneuver to halt LNG exports, which over 150 House Republicans deemed “economically and strategically dangerous,” stands to hurt a number of our allies who rely on our exports. These are nations who Biden promised two years ago would receive increased shipments to end their dependence on Russian gas; many of them still face natural gas supply gaps and will continue to do so for years to come.
Not only is the president shrinking global energy supply, but he is also toying with hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of billions in economic activity, and our allies overseas.
Hitting the pause button on our LNG exports will not pause global energy demand. Those who depend on the U.S. will be forced to look elsewhere to fill their needs. Some might turn back to Russia, which will only give Putin more power and control. Others might look to Iran or China. Ultimately, options are limited since few are in the LNG business. And other choices besides the U.S. will result in a dirtier product since most nations do not adhere to the same environmental standards. Countries may even opt to rely more heavily on coal-fired power generation, a process with a much bigger carbon footprint.
Recommended
Whatever the path, global emissions will certainly increase, which runs completely counter to what is trying to be achieved here.
Multiple studies consistently show that LNG generally provides between 40-50 percent net greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In fact, according to Energy Information Agency (EIA) data, coal to gas switching accounted for over 60 percent of the U.S. emissions reductions over the period 2005-2020.
University professor Roger Pielke, Jr noted that even Biden’s Department of Energy (DOE) concludes LNG emits far less greenhouse gases than does regional coal. Sadly, the particular webpage Pielke referenced has since been scrapped and is no longer available.
Natural gas has displaced coal in the U.S., and if we are serious at all about global climate issues, LNG would be a priority. Coal use around the world is rising, particularly in China and India, and natural gas could just as easily displace coal abroad.
The administration was similarly petitioned by environmental groups for this very freeze on LNG exports only six months ago. And yet, their plea was rejected. What changed? Some suggest it is on account of an election year and the political expediency required to appease a certain group of voters. Our leaders should not be playing politics with energy and national security.
This sets an egregiously bad precedent that every project must be subject to a climate test, even well after its completion and implementation. Who will be hit next? Future projects could fail to materialize if such a snag is entirely plausible.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member