Recent research questions the climate justification for Biden’s LNG pause
The text discusses a new report revealing that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) is cleaner than many European fuel alternatives. This challenges the basis of liberal Democrats’ opposition to new LNG export terminals. The Biden administration’s pause on approvals for such terminals has sparked concerns about global energy security and geopolitical implications. The text highlights a recent study indicating that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) is cleaner than several European fuel options. This challenges the rationale behind liberal Democrats’ resistance to new LNG export terminals. Concerns arise over global energy security and geopolitical consequences due to the Biden administration’s temporary halt on terminal approvals.
Liquefied natural gas exported from the United States is significantly cleaner than most of the alternative fuels available in Europe, a new report found, a finding that challenges the basis for liberal Democrats’ opposition to new export terminals for LNG.
The new study has particular significance in light of the Biden administration’s pause on approvals of new LNG export terminals earlier this year to consider the effects of new facilities on the climate. That decision has sparked intense backlash from industry groups and Republicans in Congress, who argued the pause could risk global energy security and risk driving allies into the hands of Russia and other adversaries.
The report, conducted by Berkeley Research Group and commissioned by the U.S. trade group LNG Allies, found that the average emissions intensity of U.S. LNG exports to Europe is 53% lower than emissions from coal-fired power plants within the bloc and 8% lower than emissions from total piped gas imports to the bloc.
U.S. LNG greenhouse gas emissions had a 29% and 19% lower emissions profile compared to piped gas supplies from Russia and Algeria, respectively.
U.S. LNG emissions were higher than piped gas emissions from Norway and Azerbaijan, however — at 35% and 4%, respectively.
The report, based on more than two years of research, is the most comprehensive study to date comparing lifecycle emissions from U.S. LNG to other fossil fuel emissions.
The U.S. has seven active LNG export terminals, and the country is in the process of building five additional facilities with a baseload export capacity of more than 70 million tons per year.
The U.S. has also risen to become a key supplier of LNG to allies in Asia and the European Union, especially following Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine — prompting concerns about supply security as a result of the pause, which Republicans have characterized as benefiting adversaries such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Climate groups and some Democrats in Congress had pressed the Biden administration to halt new U.S. LNG exports due primarily to a feared increase in methane emissions.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
In November, a group of 60 lawmakers led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) urged the Department of Energy to update how it determines whether LNG export projects are in the “public interest,” voicing concerns that the current method of approval “does not fully or accurately consider how LNG exports negatively impact the climate, environmental justice communities, or increase domestic energy prices.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
