Climate activists are giving Putin what he wants regarding liquid natural gas imports.
Imports of U.S. LNG (liquified natural gas) is one reason why Europe has (so far) been able to withstand the energy squeeze resulting from the ending of the supply of most Russian gas.
That ought to be something to celebrate, but some climate activists do not seem to agree.
The US natural gas industry is on high alert as the Biden administration reconsiders the way it licences massive new export terminals for the fuel, under pressure from climate campaigners escalating a fight against fossil energy infrastructure.
Construction of liquefied natural gas terminals along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts have vaulted the US above Qatar as the top global LNG exporter, enabling it to replace critical European supplies after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The multibillion-dollar terminals have also become targets for climate activists who argue they lock in dependence on planet-warming fossil fuels for decades. Activists have intensified their campaign as President Joe Biden seeks re-election this year.
Campaigners have urged the US Department of Energy to update how it decides whether new LNG export projects are in the “public interest”. They want it to delay approval of Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, which is next in line for a permit and one of the largest projects along the Gulf coast.
Exporting LNG to help Europe stand behind the effort to defend Ukraine is rather clearly in this country’s interest, and, for that matter, the interests of the Western world. But it seems that some disagree, including, it appears, people working within the administration.
The Financial Times:
Such authorisations, for exporting LNG to countries that lack a free trade agreement with the US, have been routine since the first projects were proposed more than a decade ago.
Some Biden officials were now pushing for a significant review of the approval process, arguing that there was a better understanding of the environmental impact caused by infrastructure leaks and emissions, said a source with knowledge of the discussions who cautioned that no decision had been taken.
Industry executives say such a review would serve as a de facto moratorium on new projects, and warned of grave consequences as a result.
That such a “significant review” can even be considered (for more than a minute) in times such as these is a sign either of frivolity or fanaticism.
The Financial Times:
The US became the world’s largest LNG exporter in 2023. Its seven existing terminals can produce as much as 86mn tonnes a year, according to the Energy Information Administration — enough to satisfy the combined gas needs of Germany and France. Five more projects under development will add another 73mn tonnes a year and the energy department is reviewing proposals for at least another 16.
The activists’ campaign spotlights a dilemma for Biden, who promised on the campaign trail to lead a transition away from fossil fuels but has witnessed record levels of US oil and gas production and exports. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he encouraged the growth of US LNG to shore up European supplies.
In November, more than 60 Democratic lawmakers called on the energy department to reassess how it determines whether new LNG projects are in the public interest citing “climate” concerns.
Vladimir Putin sends those lawmakers his thanks.