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
roishetta ozane
The DOE Finally Admits That LNG Isn’t a Get-Out-of-Climate-Crisis Free Card
A new report and statement won’t necessarily bind anything, but they do something almost as important: Finally a Democratic administration has been straightforward and honest about natural gas.
Dec 17, 2024
Late Monday afternoonPolitico, and then The New York Times, reported that the Department of Energy is ready to release the report of it’s nearly year-long study on LNG exports—a study mandated by a large-scale campaign (that very much included this newsletter) which persuaded U.S. President Joe Biden to halt new permits for new terminals along the Gulf of Mexico.
The report, and the equally important statement that came with it, won’t necessarily bind anything—it may complicate somewhat the Trump administration’s plans to approve new export terminals, but probably not fatally. But it does something almost as important. Finally a Democratic administration has been straightforward and honest about natural gas. That may actually matter, both in the short and long-term.
The continued growth of gas exports was “neither sustainable nor advisable,” Granholm said.
The background here is that, ever since the onset of fracking in the ‘oughts, Democrats have embraced the surge in natural gas. The GOP was still in love with coal, but climate change concerns were making that uncomfortable for anyone this side of Joe Manchin (D-Flammable Black Rocks). Along came the sudden surge in natural gas, which allowed the Obama administration both a path toward reviving the post-financial-crisis economy, and a way to cut carbon emissions. If you doubt me, read almost any of former President Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses, which each contain a paragraph-long paean to the fracking boom.
In 2013, for instance, he enthused:
We produce more natural gas than ever before—and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen…
The natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. And that’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.
The shift from coal to gas-fired power plants, which was basically the sum of Obama’s climate policy, dropped carbon emissions, something he (and the fossil fuel industry) boasted about endlessly. But the problem was physics: As Cornell professor Bob Howarth started noisily pointing out, carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas. CH4, or methane, traps heat even more effectively, and Howarth and others insisted it was escaping into the atmosphere from fracking fields and pipelines in large enough quantity to cancel out the progress on carbon.
They won the scientific battle—study after study has now demonstrated that indeed leak rates are very high. But the political struggle was much harder: No one wanted to give up the idea that there was a pain-free way out of the climate dilemma.
There was so much natural gas in the Permian Basin that America couldn’t soak it up, and in the Trump years we started to export it—that quickly grew to the point where America was the largest source of gas in the world. Both the Biden and Trump administrations approved one export terminal after another, over the outcry of local residents along the Louisiana and Texas coasts who had to deal with these monstrosities. It finally reached the point where environmentalists had to make a stand, and that’s what happened in the fall of 2023—after another Howarth study, this one demonstrating that so much methane leaked from the giant LNG carriers that it was worse than exporting coal.
Hence the pause, and hence the angry outcry from the oil industry (which worked harder than ever to elect a Republican in November), and hence today’s report. The language is truly strong: Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, in her letter that accompanies the report, stresses that it would be bad news for American consumers who still depend on gas (supply and demand being what it is). But the more important part is what she says about natural gas and climate. According to the Times, she says that any few facilities should face “rigorous question”
“especially in a world that needs to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Under a scenario in which more than the current level of gas exports was approved, the report finds that the additional emissions would be 1.5 gigatons per year by 2050. That’s about a quarter of annual emissions generated by the United States, the world’s second-biggest polluter.
The fossil fuel industry always insists that LNG exports will replace coal, but crucially Granholm and the report made clear that’s not true.
She noted that the study found increased LNG exports would displace more wind, solar, and other renewable energy than coal. The study modeled five scenarios, and in every one, global greenhouse gases were projected to rise, even when researchers assumed aggressive use of technologies to capture and store carbon emissions.
This, in turn, sends a signal to Malaysia and Vietnam and the other Asian countries that would be the main recipients of gas from new terminals. I am guardedly hopeful that the year’s delay—which allowed solar and windpower to drop in price and gain in momentum—may be enough to convince those nations that they don’t want to sign up for 40 years of dependency on imported gas. I sure hope so, in part because of the heroes that led this fight—people like Roishetta Ozane who are defending not just the whole planet but their particular part of it.
The continued growth of gas exports was “neither sustainable nor advisable,” Granholm said. That’s the closest that prominent American politicians have come to telling the truth about the most important component of the climate crisis. If Vice President Kamala Harris had won the election, this might have meant a real sea change. In our current reality it’s at least honest, and honesty is a lot better than its opposite.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urged to Oppose Ex-Manchin Staffer for Top Environmental Post
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Lukas Ross.
Mar 20, 2024
The environmental group Friends of the Earth on Wednesday called on U.S. senators to oppose one of President Joe Biden's regulatory nominees, citing his "disturbing pattern of dirty energy advocacy."
Last month, Biden nominated West Virginia Solicitor-General Lindsay See, energy economics and policy expert Judy Chang, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission analyst David Rosner to serve on FERC's five-member executive body. Chang and Rosner are Democrats. See is a Republican, as there can be no more than three commissioners from the same party.
Friends of the Earth (FOE)—which will publish an online ad urging senators to reject Rosner—noted that the nominee is a former staffer for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one of the most fossil fuel-friendly members of Congress, and that he previously worked at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), "where he sided with industry over consumers and the climate on multiple energy issues. BPC
funders include BP, Chevron, Conoco, and Shell."
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Lukas Ross, FOE's deputy climate and energy director, referring to the nominee's support for liquefied natural gas exports. "We're calling on Democrats not named Manchin to reject this nomination."
Noting the senator's decision to not seek reelection this year, Ross added that "letting Joe Manchin control FERC from beyond his political grave should be a nonstarter for every other Democrat in the caucus."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to hold a heading for the FERC nominees on Thursday morning. Manchin, who chairs the committee, backs Rosner. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking member on the committee, has voiced support for See, while praising Rosner, who "has worked constructively with my staff."
If See and Rosner are confirmed as commissioners, FERC would have a pro-fossil fuel majority. Democratic Chair Willie Phillips has led a wave of fossil fuel project approvals, while Republican Commissioner Mark Christie is a reliable booster for oil, gas, and coal.
Progressive lawmakers and environmental campaigners have been increasingly critical of FERC, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) calling it a "completely captured agency."
"The commission is captured by the fossil fuel industry. There is no other explanation for how FERC could approve over 99% of the fossil fuel projects it reviews in the face of climate catastrophe," Merkley said after the body greenlighted TC Energy's proposed expansion of methane gas infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. "FERC needs fundamental reform."
Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana environmental justice group Vessel Project, wrote in an opinion piece published Wednesday by Common Dreams that "as we transition to a future without fossil fuels, it's clear that major change is needed at FERC."
"While the new commissioners at FERC go through the confirmation process, they must show they are dedicated to more than just the basic criteria of the job," Ozane added. "We hope to see the commissioners eager to pave a new path forward by prioritizing justice: environmental justice and climate justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Activists to Insurance Giants: 'End Your Support for Oil and Gas Now'
"Make no mistake, money made off the extraction of oil and gas is blood money," one frontline Indigenous campaigner said.
Feb 28, 2024
More than 100 frontline community members from Louisiana, Texas, and New York marched on the Manhattan offices of four insurance giants Tuesday, demanding that they stop backing new fossil fuel projects that would intensify the climate crisis.
The march and rally come as part of the Insure Our Future Global Week of Action from February 26 to March 3, as activists in nearly 30 countries and on five continents are staging protests to demand that major insurance companies stop insuring fossil fuels, respect human rights, and support a just transition to renewable energy.
"We have been telling financiers and insurers about the destruction and devastation oil and gas projects are causing to our health, communities, and sacred lands for years, yet they continued to enable its unhinged expansion," Juan Mancias, the tribal chair of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, said in a statement. "Make no mistake, money made off the extraction of oil and gas is blood money. We are tired of empty promises, we want results. End your support for oil and gas now."
"The insurance industry readily covers polluting pipelines as part of routine business, despite potential costs. However, when it comes to insuring our homes, they either refuse or make it prohibitively expensive."
The protest came days after a report from Insure Our Future, Rainforest Action Network, and Public Citizen revealed that at least 35 insurers are underwriting controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export infrastructure along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The insurers, the names of which were obtained via more than 50 Freedom of Information Act requests, include AIG, Tokio Marine, Chubb, and Sompo, the four companies targeted during Tuesday's action.
For example, Sompo and Chubb are two of the insurers behind Rio Grande LNG, a terminal in Brownsville, Texas, that threatens land and sites sacred to the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe, which has not given its Free, Prior, and Informed Consent to the project. Protesters delivered a petition to Chubb with more than 345,000 signatures asking it and other insurers to withdraw their support.
"The proposed terminal will support the continued environmental racism in the gulf by perpetuating the displacement, pollution, and physical harm of impacted communities," the petition reads. "It is imperative that the supporting insurance companies listen to Indigenous and impacted communities. And time is running out for transformative action to tackle the climate crisis."
In addition, the new LNG terminals would increase the pollution burden on communities that are already disproportionately exposed to toxins from the region's many petrochemical facilities and harm local ecosystems and wildlife.
"If built, Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG, and their proposed Rio Bravo Pipeline would destroy our low-income Latine community's way of life," Bekah Hinojosa of South Texas Environmental Justice Network said in the report. "Pollution from these mega LNG/ methane export terminals would destroy the waterways where shrimp lay their eggs and our people fish to feed their families. We're calling on these insurance companies to stop insuring LNG/methane terminals because it's blatant environmental racism."
In terms of global impact, the projects backed by the insurers would emit the same amount of climate-warming emissions every year as 239 coal plants.
"These companies are insuring one of the largest build-outs of fossil fuels in the world, from investment to underwriting, these companies are culpable for providing material support through millions in coverage, while simultaneously abandoning communities in Texas and Louisiana," Mary Lowell of Rainforest Action Network said in a statement.
The report and the protest came after climate and frontline advocates in the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Biden administration to pause Department of Energy approvals for new LNG exports while they reassess their decision-making criteria, including climate impacts. Activists note that these projects also cannot move forward without insurance, which gives these companies a pivotal role. At the same time, many insurance companies internally recognize the risks posed by the climate crisis. On Wednesday, reinsurance company Swiss Re calculated that it already costs the U.S. around $97 billion a year.
Tuesday's march included a rally at AIG. The company, along with Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and SCOR, was featured on a majority of the certificates detailed in the report, including those for Louisiana's Cameron LNG and Sabine Pass LNG. At the same time, AIG has stopped backing Louisiana-based businesses amid extreme weather events fueled by the climate crisis.
Many community members exposed to pollution from petrochemical facilities are also exposed to more dangerous storms. Roishetta Ozane, a Louisiana environmental justice leader who founded the Vessel Project for disaster relief, stood in front of AIG explaining how she had survived Hurricanes Laura and Delta, as well as a winter storm and flood in 2021.
"All of these disasters that happened in my community because of these climate-inducing, climate-causing, climate catastrophe-ensuring projects like LNG terminals that are insured by companies like AIG, Chubb, and Tokio Marine," she said.
Another participant, Donna Simbo of New York Communities for Change, said she had survived Hurricane Sandy only to still be living in temporary housing more than 10 years later, with insurance premiums 70% higher.
"The insurance industry readily covers polluting pipelines as part of routine business, despite potential costs," Simbo said. "However, when it comes to insuring our homes, they either refuse or make it prohibitively expensive. Despite acknowledging the risks of climate change, insurance companies have avoided taking their fair share of responsibility."
Beyond New York, actions this week are also planned across the globe including in Colombia, Costa Rica, Congo, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, South Korea, Switzerland, the U.K., Uganda, and Tanzania.
Uganda-based activist Hilda Flavia Nakabuye wrote for Common Dreams urging insurers to back away from the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which would threaten local biodiversity and livelihoods and emit 32.3 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. While 28 insurers have promised not to back it, several have not, including AIG, Tokio Marine, Chubb, Hiscox, and Lloyd's of London.
"We need all major (re)insurers to rule out supporting such a dangerous new oil pipeline to make sure that it never gets built," Nakabuye said.
To date, not a single global insurer has a policy in line with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, according to Insure Our Future.
"Insurance companies are supposed to be experts at measuring and mitigating risks, yet their ongoing support for oil, gas, and coal expansion is paving the way to a dangerous and devastating future," Isabelle L'Héritier, senior campaigner and lead organizer of the Insure Our Future Global Week of Action, said in a statement.
"Billions of us are living through the catastrophic impacts of brutal wildfires, storms, floods, heatwaves, and droughts which are getting worse every year," L'Héritier continued. "The effects of the climate crisis, from water shortages to rising food prices, are being felt on every continent. Companies like Zurich, AIG, and Tokio Marine have the power to push for a cleaner, safer world for the next generation if they act now. It's time to insure our future, not destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular