The White House and the Department of Energy (DOE) have announced a pause in the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects due to concerns about their potential impact on climate change. This move, which comes in response to demands from environmentalists, is seen as unprecedented. The pause will allow federal officials to conduct a thorough environmental review of the projects’ carbon emissions, a process that could take over a year to complete.
Climate activists have been vocal in their opposition to LNG export projects, arguing that they will significantly increase emissions and contribute to global warming. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm emphasized the need to consider economic, environmental, and national security factors in reviewing export applications, stating that the goal is to ensure affordable energy and economic opportunities for all Americans while also protecting against climate change.
The specific projects that will be affected by the pause have not been disclosed, but it is known that at least two have a larger capacity and two have a smaller capacity. The pause will only impact projects that have completed the lengthy approval process of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and are awaiting DOE approval. Currently, there are 11 projects that have been green-lit by FERC but are not yet under construction, while four projects are pending before FERC and two are in the pre-filing stage.
Opponents of LNG export terminals, including Democrats and environmentalists, argue that these projects will contribute to harmful pollution and exacerbate global warming. Videos posted on social media opposing the projects have garnered millions of views in recent months. Several environmental groups and scientists have also called for the rejection of LNG development, citing concerns about climate change and its impact on communities.
However, proponents of additional LNG export facilities argue that they are essential for meeting energy demand in Europe and Asia, particularly as these regions seek to reduce their reliance on Russian natural gas supplies. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden struck a deal with the European Union to increase the export of U.S. LNG to the bloc. They argue that U.S. LNG has a cleaner production process compared to Russian sources, therefore reducing global carbon emissions.
Energy associations Eurogas and the Asia Natural Gas & Energy Association (ANGEA) have expressed strong support for the continued permitting of U.S. LNG export terminals. Eurogas emphasized the importance of such exports for reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas, while ANGEA highlighted the role of U.S. LNG in meeting Asia’s decarbonization goals. The German state-owned energy company Securing Energy for Europe has also stressed the significance of U.S. LNG for Germany’s energy security.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) and other fossil fuel industry associations have voiced their opposition to the pause, arguing that it would harm American allies, U.S. jobs, and global climate progress. They highlight the benefits of U.S. LNG in stabilizing global energy markets, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions worldwide. They also note that increased reliance on natural gas can help nations meet decarbonization goals by reducing coal-fired power generation, which has a higher carbon footprint.
Proponents of increased LNG exports emphasize that the U.S. has been a leader in carbon emissions reductions thanks to greater reliance on natural gas. They argue that without increased LNG, nations would turn to more carbon-intensive coal-fired power generation.
While the pause in permitting for LNG export terminals has drawn criticism from industry groups, it has been hailed by environmentalists who believe it is a necessary step in addressing climate change. The rigorous environmental review process will provide a comprehensive analysis of the projects’ carbon emissions, ensuring that energy decisions align with the goal of transitioning to a clean energy future.
In conclusion, the White House’s decision to halt permits for LNG export terminals reflects growing concerns about the impact of these projects on climate change. While proponents argue that LNG exports are crucial for energy security and decarbonization goals, opponents highlight the potential for increased emissions and pollution. The pause in permitting will allow for a thorough environmental review, ensuring that energy decisions align with the goal of addressing climate change and transitioning to cleaner energy sources.
