SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gulf coast
What the Biden Admin Can Still Do to Defuse the LNG Bomb Before Trump Grabs the Trigger
At the very least what the administration can and must do is tell the truth: More LNG exports are not in the public interest.
Dec 04, 2024
When the environmental history of the Biden administration is written, the Inflation Reduction Act will have pride of place—for all its compromises and flaws, it finally set serious federal money flowing toward the task of an energy transition, and defending it from Trumpian attack will be job one for green lobbyists for the next for years. (And not an impossible job in every case—the new factories built with IRA money have turned a lot of legislators, including in red states, into reluctant supporters).
But the second most useful thing the Biden administration did came less than a year ago—its January decision to pause new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This doesn’t sound to the untrained ear like such a big deal, but as readers of this newsletter know, it was: Had the industry continued to build at the pace it wanted, the climate damage from American LNG exports would soon have topped every single thing that happens in Europe. This is the biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.
You could tell what a big deal it was by the way it angered Big Oil (and big banking and big shipping)—every story about the industry’s unprecedented support for Donald Trump’s election made it clear that this was the number one casus belli. That’s because—as American demand for natural gas begins to sag in the face of the renewables buildout—their main hope was to emulate the cigarette industry and seek new markets in Asia. But a combination of on-the-ground groups in the Gulf of Mexico and climate activists across the country stuck a potato in the tailpipe. The Biden administration promised a full report before the year was out about whether or not the exports were still in the public interest.
The rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
And yesterday, somewhat surprisingly, even before that report was released, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, slowed down the process some more. They issued a finding that the next terminal up for consideration, a mammoth facility called CP 2 destined for the Louisiana coast, needed to go through a new round of environmental review because of its potential effect on local air quality. As the experts at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) explained:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order setting aside its approval for Venture Global’s massive CP2 export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The order modifies and, in part, sets aside the commission’s previous authorization order to conduct a supplemental environmental impact analysis on the project’s cumulative air quality and emissions impacts. The order states that FERC will not authorize construction until the commission completes this process.
The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan. It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that’s good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
The Biden administration should and could deny the permits outright, and here’s a petition urging them to do just that, and plans from Climate Defiance for demonstrations at the DOE next week. Most observers seem to think the denial is unlikely, especially after the FERC ruling gave them a plausible out on the most controversial of the projects. (And if they do deny them, the Trump administration might well be able to un-deny them, though at some point this all enters a valley of legal complication too thick for me to hack my way through.) Still—finish what you started. A year of investigation should have made clear that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, which means saying no.
At the very least what the Biden administration can and must do is tell the truth.
The detailed report on the economics and science of LNG exports is apparently all written and just waiting for the DOE to release, but in some ways almost as important as the report itself will be the cover letter that comes with it. The report will be dense; the language that introduces it should be clear. Though it won’t necessarily stop the new guys from doing what they want, it’s time for President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to declare forthrightly that
- There are too many of these projects in too small a space along the Gulf, and it is intolerable for the people who live there. As James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said this morning: “Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we’ve seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe. Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters.” People like Hiatt—and especially the indefatigable Roishetta Ozane—have fought as if their lives were on the line, because they are. What heroes!
- The U.S.—the leading LNG exporter in the world—is producing far more gas already than the world needs. The industry’s rhetorical defense has focused on the need to bolster European supplies after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—but Europe is now awash in gas, and has used the war to dramatically convert to renewable energy. Every long-term indication is that the continent needs more, not less. Which is why new contracts for LNG exports are designed for Asia—where they will undercut a similar conversion to sun and wind.
- In climate terms, exporting natural gas is at least as bad as exporting coal. Robert Howarth’s ground-breaking paper laying out the numerical proof was one of the keys in the battle to get the Biden pause; it’s since been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It documents the amount of heat-trapping methane that pours into the air at every point in this process. There is no possible way to square the expansion of LNG with reducing climate pollution. That won’t matter to Trump, of course, since he doesn’t believe in climate change, but it is a robust truth that needs to be stated clearly and publicly.
- In economic terms, this harms the American consumers who haven’t yet managed to install a heat pump and who are still dependent on natural gas. If shipload after shipload is sent overseas, every analysis has found, the price will go up for those Americans.
It took me far too long to figure out the danger these exports posed. I started writing about it for The New Yorker and on this newsletter in late summer of 2023, and once I understood the situation I stopped writing and started organizing, helping people like Jamie Henn and Jeremy Symons and Maura Cowley build an ad hoc climate wing of the coalition that won the pause. I’m very proud of the role Third Act played in mobilizing public opinion and I’m very proud of the role this small newsletter played too. The New York Times didn’t write a single story until the day before Biden’s decision when it was already a fait accompli; it took independent journalism and independent activism to make it happen.
One reason Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat broke my heart is because I think she would have quashed this expansion for good. But I’m hopeful that we delayed them long enough (especially given this new FERC ruling) to seriously screw up the prospects for endless expansion. Every month counts (and every month adds to financing costs); the great movement that arose to defeat these projects has taken more than a dozen months out of the calendar for their promoters, and that may well spell the difference for many projects.
The always-rational gas industry has treated its opponents with the usual respect—as one official of the Canadian producers explained recently, we are all part of a “cult-like” movement seeking “a kind of promised land where everything will operate in perfect balance.” Actually, we’re just a bunch of folks hoping for a planet that doesn’t burn right up—but to Big Oil that must look like pretty much the same thing. At any rate, if it’s a cult led by folks like Roishetta Ozane and James Hiatt, then this Methodist is happy to play his part.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The People Always Pay': Report Details How LNG Tax Breaks Harm Gulf Communities
"These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities," said one local opponent of efforts to further expand gas exports in the region.
Dec 02, 2024
How do local communities lose out when governments invest in fossil fuel facilities instead of community needs?
That's the question at the heart of a new Sierra Club report released Monday, titled "The People Always Pay: Tax Breaks Force Gulf Communities to Subsidize the LNG Industry"—which details the extent to which the export market for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, benefits from billions of dollars in tax breaks in Louisiana and Texas—revenue that could be invested in public infrastructure, schools, and other priorities.
In the past decade, after an export ban was lifted by the Obama administration in 2015, the United States has shifted from an importer to a mass exporter of LNG, which a recent Cornell University study revealed has worse impacts than coal. Critics warn that investment in LNG causes environmental harm and hampers the transition to a green economy. Export terminal sites are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, primarily impacting impoverished coastal communities in Louisiana and Texas, according to the Sierra Club's report.
"The immense scale of tax breaks granted to billion-dollar LNG projects—millions of dollars per job—is mind-blowing. These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities by polluting the air and water while depriving Gulf Coast communities of vital revenue for schools, infrastructure, healthcare, emergency services, coastal restoration and protection," said James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou and a resident of Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana, who is featured in the report.
The report relies on interviews with community members and takes a close look at the primary tax abatement programs that LNG export projects have benefited from, respectively.
Under two Louisiana tax break programs—the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) and another called Quality Jobs—nine operating, proposed, or under-construction LNG export terminals have been provided $21.6 billion. In Cameron Parish, for example, home to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG facility, the company is set to receive $4.9 billion in ITEP subsidies between 2012 and 2040, according to the report. In total, Cameron Parish residents are set to lose out on $14.9 billion in revenue from 2012-2040 due to ITEP subsidies for various LNG export terminals.
That investment in fossil fuel facilities translates to a lost $3.8 billion that could go towards schools and another $2.4 billion that could go towards health services, according to the authors of the report.
The report also details how bolstering the LNG market has adversely impacted the local economy.
For example, for Cameron Parish and nearby Calcasieu Parish, the rapid development of petrochemical facilities in the area has increased ship traffic. The Port of Cameron was once the country's largest producer of seafood, according to the report, but dredging and erosion stemming from ship traffic has made it hard for aquatic life to thrive: "While Cameron Parish had a fleet of 250 fishing vessels in 2005, nowadays, only a few dozen remain and some fishermen claim to see only 12 to 15 people working on the water every day, with others forced to supplement their income with additional jobs."
The report highlights that a grassroots organization in Louisiana found that ITEP applications from 1998 to 2017 pledged over 121,000 new jobs, but that the companies actually experienced a net loss of over 26,500 jobs.
The impact on communities is not just economic. According to the report, in Texas' Golden Triangle, a highly industrialized petrochemical corridor that includes the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, residents breathe in polluting vapors that increase potential health harms.
"Among other pollutants, refineries produce benzene, a carcinogen that can result in leukemia or severe bone marrow damage. On average, an estimated one in 5,000 people in the Golden Triangle are at an incremental lifetime cancer risk, despite the EPA’s upper limit of acceptable cancer risk being one in 10,000," the report states.
Given the sizable tax exemptions in both Louisiana and Texas pledged for projects that are not yet up and running—in addition to the environmental degradation that is guaranteed with further expansion—the Sierra Club argues that making sure they are never built is "exactly what is necessary to avert the worst of the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems: Don’t Let Manchin Do Big Oil One Last Favor
Manchin’s latest attempt at permitting reform would try and force the approval of huge new LNG export terminals along the Gulf Coast, which are both environmental justice nightmares and major carbon bombs.
Jul 26, 2024
A story. In December of 2015, everyone who worked on climate issues was in Paris for the white-knuckled final negotiations of the historic accords. While that was going on, Big Oil’s friends in Congress passed—almost without debate—an end to the longstanding ban on oil exports from the U.S. I cobbled together—with the help of the Sierra Club’s Mike Brune—what may have been the only op-ed opposing the measure, in a Paris cafe fueled by pain au chocolat. But the Democratic Senators I reached out to back home laughed—it wasn’t a big deal, they said, and anyway they were getting a production tax credit for wind energy in return. They were wrong: America in a decade has gone from not exporting oil and gas to becoming the world’s biggest producer. Bigger than Russia and the Saudis.
The moral of the story is: Big Oil is sneaky, and they will use moments when attention is diverted (say, by the advent of a truly powerful new presidential candidate) to advance their agenda. And the point of the story is: They’re trying it again.
A couple of days ago—while all of us were paying attention to Brat Summer, heterosectionality, and the general splendor of Kamala Harris’ first week (huge thanks to the members of the climate community who came together online last night to raise huge money for the campaign)—Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) announced he had cobbled together a new proposal for “permitting reform.” On the face of it, some of the new proposal makes real sense: Among other things, it would ease the process of approving the badly needed transmission lines for moving solar and wind power back and forth across the continent.
This week saw the hottest temperatures on our planet in at least the last 125,000 years. Get real.
But remember: Joe Manchin has taken more money from the fossil fuel industry than anyone else in D.C. (Which is saying something—he’s the Simone Biles of corruption). And so it’s not surprising that there’s a huge cost for this sane policy change: The bill will also try and force the approval of huge new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals along the Gulf Coast. This is not only disgusting on environmental justice grounds (watch Roishetta Ozane explain the cost to her community) but it is also the single biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.
Jeremy Symons, the veteran climate analyst who has supplied the most relevant climate analyses throughout the LNG fight, came up with these numbers last night. If enacted, he said, the LNG portion of the Manchin bill would “lock in new greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 165 coal-fired power plants or more” and “erase the climate benefits of building 50 major renewable electricity transmission lines.” It is exactly, to the letter, what Project 2025 has called for.
And yet it has some actual chance of passing. Martin Heinrichs, the Democratic senator from New Mexico, endorsed it on Wednesday—which makes a certain amount of local sense, since the state derives an outsized share of its government revenues from taxes on gas production. But Heinrichs is selling out the planet to help his state. The question is, how many of his fellow Democrats will go along? Enough to allow this legislation to move through the upper chamber?
Because remember: The ultimate goal of climate policy is not to rewire America so it can use more renewable energy. That is a good goal, and it will make money for solar and wind developers which is why many of them will support this bill. But the goal of climate policy is to prevent the planet from overheating. And if you make renewable energy easier in America at the cost of addicting developing Asian economies to exported American LNG, you have taken an enormous step backward. (You’ve also screwed over the American consumers who still depend on natural gas and will now pay more, which is one reason senators like Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have taken a dim view of this proposed law).
The big green groups have come out strongly against it. Here’s the position of the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and EarthJustice, and the Sierra Club, and Oil Change International. And here’s mine: This week saw the hottest temperatures on our planet in at least the last 125,000 years. Get real.
This week saw the explosion of joy that comes when politicians stand up to business as usual. Don’t undermine all of it with a “deal” whose main beneficiary is Big Oil. Don’t give Joe Manchin a gift on his way out the door. Don’t do what you did in 2015, when you opened the door to the oil and gas export boom. Don’t turn off the same young voters that U.S. President Joe Biden turned off by approving the Willow oil complex. Don’t get in the way of the momentum we’re trying to build as November approaches.
And on top of all that political reality, there’s reality reality as well. Physics doesn’t get a vote in Congress, but it gets the only vote that matters in the real world. Pay attention to it for once!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular