Environmentalists are gearing up for their next giant climate fight: They want to force a showdown with the Biden administration over the massive expansion of U.S. natural gas exports.
Less than a decade ago, U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas — LNG for short — didn’t exist. Now they are growing so rapidly that the United States last year became the world’s largest gas exporter. The trend has given Washington more influence abroad, while raising big questions about its environmental legacy.
President Biden has thrown his support behind the industry to help European allies, which in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have sought more U.S. gas to break a years-long reliance on Russian energy supplies. But environmentalists fear that by investing billions of dollars in new terminals to chill and ship U.S. gas abroad, the industry is locking in more planet-warming emissions when Biden has pledged to zero out climate pollution.
That has led environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and famed activist Bill McKibben, to target gas exports in an emerging campaign. More than two dozen new or expansion projects are under construction or under consideration. Opponents say that buildout far exceeds what is needed and will further burden communities of color on the Gulf Coast and other parts of the country. They want Washington to better judge the cumulative impacts of these projects before granting more permit approvals.
“The real news is we’re in 2023; it’s never been hotter,” McKibben said in a video news conference Tuesday. “So why on Earth are we even talking about figuring out a way to spew yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? … It doesn’t make sense.”
The mounting pushback illustrates the Biden administration’s challenges in balancing national security concerns with climate pledges, while also recognizing domestic political realities. Biden enraged young climate activists and others this year by approving the Willow oil drilling project on Alaska’s North Slope, even as the White House argued it was legally obligated to sanction it in some form.
But the greenhouse gas emissions associated with just one LNG export project, known as Calcasieu Pass 2 or CP2, would be 20 times as large as those from Willow, according to an analysis by Jeremy Symons, an environmental consultant and former climate policy adviser at the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The Willow project was a carbon bomb, but the CP2 project is a megabomb when it comes to climate change,” Symons said in an interview.
Shaylyn Hynes, spokeswoman for the project’s owner, Arlington-based Venture Global, said that U.S. gas exports provide other countries an alternative to dirtier fuels, including coal, which has seen a rebound in global demand in recent months. And LNG is still critical to helping Europe and to delivering energy to millions of poor people globally, Hynes added in an email.
“The well-funded environmental activists opposing CP2 and all U.S. LNG projects are completely out of touch with reality,” she said. “Ironically, Mr. McKibben and other activists who claim to want to lower global emissions are actually advocating for restricting access to a cleaner form of energy.”
U.S. gas exports have been a hot-button issue for more than a decade. In the 2000s, gas in the United States was so expensive and scarce that Washington and industry leaders were contemplating ways to import more gas. But that era also led to a new drilling technique, commonly referred to as fracking, that would unlock so much gas that the United States now produces far more than it consumes.
Soon companies began requesting federal permits to export gas, initially gaining approval from the Obama administration as a way to bolster the country’s international trade. Biden threw his support behind the industry after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year. America and European allies have since worked to curtail Russian exports of both gas and oil.
U.S. LNG exports have doubled over the last four years. The projects already approved and under construction are expected to again double America’s LNG export capacity in the next four years. Almost all of these projects are along the Gulf Coast, mostly in an industrial region straddling Louisiana and Texas that is already home to hulking petrochemical plants.
Backers of these proposed projects argue that they could have a positive climate impact globally if the gas displaces coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. They note that the gas is largely going to European countries, some of which have been burning more coal since the start of the Ukraine war, as well as to Asian countries such as China that are still building more coal-fired power plants.
“Gas can absolutely displace coal in the medium term and long term, bringing carbon emissions down,” said Emily McClain, vice president of North America gas markets at the research firm Rystad Energy.
Environmentalists, however, say switching from coal to gas does not go far enough to address climate change. They point to findings by the International Energy Agency that humanity cannot build any new oil, gas or coal infrastructure if it hopes to prevent dangerous global warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). They also note that the main component of LNG is methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more initially potent than carbon dioxide and often leaks from oil and gas infrastructure.
“When you build a new LNG facility, you’re deciding where the world will get our energy 10, 20 and 30 years from now,” Symons said. “And if all we’ve done is move from coal to gas, the planet is cooked.”
Some analysts said stemming the supply of fossil fuels doesn’t necessarily halt demand, illustrated by how some regions in Europe turned to coal to replace Russian gas. A better option would be to tighten rules and take other measures to ensure the gas industry is eliminating leaks and reducing its emissions, said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The Biden administration has emphasized this at home and abroad, said both Cahill and the Energy Department, which said in a statement it “is committed to safeguarding the energy security of our nation” while also decarbonizing the natural gas sector, including reducing “harmful methane emissions.”
Cahill and other analysts said the biggest downside of these export projects may be for U.S. consumers. While it may lower soaring prices for allies in Europe, sending more gas there — or elsewhere into the global market — has increased domestic natural gas prices, leaving consumers with higher bills for heating their homes, according to findings by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a nonprofit think tank.
If the Biden administration denies permits for new LNG export projects, it could help lower the price Americans pay for natural gas, said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst at the institute.
“Halting the growth of the U.S. LNG buildout is a good way to protect consumers from price spikes,” Williams-Derry said.
Two federal agencies are responsible for approving permits for LNG projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must decide whether to authorize the siting and construction of projects under the Natural Gas Act, while the Energy Department must determine whether it’s in the “public interest” to export gas to countries with which the United States lacks a free-trade agreement.
The Energy Department reports to the White House, and its decisions often reflect administration policy. But FERC is an independent agency that does not directly answer to Biden. Although its five commissioners are nominated by the president, no more than three may be of the same political party, and it is currently split 2-2 between each party, led by acting chairman Willie Phillips.
“Chairman Phillips has stated he supports projects that are needed,” commission spokeswoman Mary O’Driscoll said in an email. “And as he controls the agenda for the Commission, he has been working to get Commission votes on several projects.”
Neither agency has yet denied a permit for an LNG project. However, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups have urged the Energy Department to update how it makes the public interest determination, saying it does not account for relevant factors.
“The current process doesn’t accurately consider how LNG exports impact the climate, environmental justice or domestic energy prices,” said Jamie Henn, founder and director of Fossil Free Media, a group that opposes fossil fuels. “Honestly, it’s frustrating that we’re still having this conversation with Democratic administrations.”
A Republican-led bill takes the opposite approach. The Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2023, which was introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), would effectively prevent either agency from determining that an LNG project is not in the public interest.
“It is past time we cut the red tape surrounding the natural gas export permitting process, and unleash homegrown American energy,” Johnson said in a statement. (The House was initially expected to vote on the bill in late September, but then the chamber plunged into chaos over the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker.)
On Thursday, FERC will consider a certificate for Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG export facility in Plaquemines Parish, La., roughly 20 miles south of New Orleans. The commission has yet to announce when it will consider a permit for Calcasieu Pass 2.
While activists want a broader reexamination of all these facilities, the size of the Calcasieu Pass 2 expansion makes it an important target, McKibben said Tuesday. He and activists with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade accused the company of permit violations and repeated air pollution, fires and equipment malfunctions at the current operating terminal.
“This is obviously an environmental justice train wreck,” McKibben said. “The last thing that people in these communities need is another project of this magnitude shoved down their throats.”
In an email, Hynes acknowledged the plant had some air pollution “deviations” in 2022 but said that those are not permit violations and that the plant has reduced them this year. The plant has been in “full compliance with our annual emission limits,” she added.
Charif Souki, a pioneer in the LNG industry whose company Tellurian is building another new terminal in the neighboring parish, disputed McKibben’s characterization of local sentiment. Industries are siting facilities in the area because of support from locals and government officials who want the economic boost, he said in an interview Monday. He criticized environmentalists for seeking to block a source of energy that he says can help people out of life-threatening poverty.
“If we start talking about energy justice, people are going to die,” said Souki, who previously founded the first U.S. LNG exporter, Cheniere Energy. Environmentalists, he said, “are consumed with only what happens in the United States, and that’s a mistake.”
"gas" - Google News
October 17, 2023 at 08:30PM
https://ift.tt/OyrUpiT
Climate activists rally to halt new U.S. exports of natural gas - The Washington Post
"gas" - Google News
https://ift.tt/sHnSh48
https://ift.tt/53OMpK6
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Climate activists rally to halt new U.S. exports of natural gas - The Washington Post"
Post a Comment