Biden’s LNG Move Is a Failure Three Times Over. Halting new approvals of exports is bad for the US, bad for America’s allies and most likely bad for the climate.
Biden’s LNG Move Is a Failure Three Times Over. Halting new approvals of exports is bad for the US, bad for America’s allies and most likely bad for the climate.
>President Joe Biden’s Department of Energy has halted pending approvals of exports of liquefied natural gas while it studies the economic and environmental effects of shipping such fuel abroad. The White House is right to make fighting climate change an overriding priority. Even so, this announcement was ill-timed and unwise. It’s unlikely to advance the president’s climate-change ambitions and undermines the effort to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
Over the longer term, LNG certainly needs to be phased out. Burning it produces greenhouse-gas emissions — and producing, refrigerating and shipping it overseas contributes to global warming all on their own. But in the short term, reducing US exports of LNG will force buyers to seek supplies from other (less regulated) producers and rely more heavily on dirtier fuels, notably coal. It doesn’t help the environment for the US to reduce its own carbon footprint if, as a direct result, other countries increase theirs by more.
Election-year politics is apparently the primary motivation. “While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future, my administration will not be complacent,” said the president. “We will not cede to special interests.” Environmental campaigners have deplored the boom in US exports of LNG. They pressed for this pause in permits and count the decision as a big win. What matters is whether it’s a win for the US, its allies and the environment.
>
>
>
>Because of the knock-on effects, reduced US exports of LNG might actually increase net global emissions of carbon and other dangerous pollutants. Admittedly, the calculations are complicated, and careful scrutiny of the environmental impact is warranted. But pausing approvals while this is done (read: until after the election) creates uncertainty for producers that have to plan far ahead. That’s needlessly disruptive. As long as fossil fuels are being burned, it would be better for both the domestic economy and the global environment to regulate domestic LNG production more stringently, then leverage the US production-cost advantage to displace foreign suppliers held to lower standards. Under that approach, there’d be no doubt: The more America exported, the better.
All this would be true even if Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine. The war makes the administration’s LNG initiative look even more ill-advised. In 2022, the US promised to expand its gas supplies to Europe, providing a crucial cushion to the energy shock caused by Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Without that effort, the economic damage would’ve been vastly worse. The war is far from over, and its outcome isn’t ordained. If the pause in approvals holds back US exports, Europe will have to source more fuel from elsewhere — including from Russia. Putin’s coffers will be replenished, while Europe’s willingness to resist Russian aggression might subside as the costs mount. Biden’s refusal to “cede to special interests” will have been greeted as excellent news in Moscow; in Kyiv, not so much.
>
>
>
>The conclusion is the same whether one puts climate or national security first. Biden’s LNG initiative is bad politics and worse policy.
1 Comment
>President Joe Biden’s Department of Energy has halted pending approvals of exports of liquefied natural gas while it studies the economic and environmental effects of shipping such fuel abroad. The White House is right to make fighting climate change an overriding priority. Even so, this announcement was ill-timed and unwise. It’s unlikely to advance the president’s climate-change ambitions and undermines the effort to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
Over the longer term, LNG certainly needs to be phased out. Burning it produces greenhouse-gas emissions — and producing, refrigerating and shipping it overseas contributes to global warming all on their own. But in the short term, reducing US exports of LNG will force buyers to seek supplies from other (less regulated) producers and rely more heavily on dirtier fuels, notably coal. It doesn’t help the environment for the US to reduce its own carbon footprint if, as a direct result, other countries increase theirs by more.
Election-year politics is apparently the primary motivation. “While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future, my administration will not be complacent,” said the president. “We will not cede to special interests.” Environmental campaigners have deplored the boom in US exports of LNG. They pressed for this pause in permits and count the decision as a big win. What matters is whether it’s a win for the US, its allies and the environment.
>
>
>
>Because of the knock-on effects, reduced US exports of LNG might actually increase net global emissions of carbon and other dangerous pollutants. Admittedly, the calculations are complicated, and careful scrutiny of the environmental impact is warranted. But pausing approvals while this is done (read: until after the election) creates uncertainty for producers that have to plan far ahead. That’s needlessly disruptive. As long as fossil fuels are being burned, it would be better for both the domestic economy and the global environment to regulate domestic LNG production more stringently, then leverage the US production-cost advantage to displace foreign suppliers held to lower standards. Under that approach, there’d be no doubt: The more America exported, the better.
All this would be true even if Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine. The war makes the administration’s LNG initiative look even more ill-advised. In 2022, the US promised to expand its gas supplies to Europe, providing a crucial cushion to the energy shock caused by Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Without that effort, the economic damage would’ve been vastly worse. The war is far from over, and its outcome isn’t ordained. If the pause in approvals holds back US exports, Europe will have to source more fuel from elsewhere — including from Russia. Putin’s coffers will be replenished, while Europe’s willingness to resist Russian aggression might subside as the costs mount. Biden’s refusal to “cede to special interests” will have been greeted as excellent news in Moscow; in Kyiv, not so much.
>
>
>
>The conclusion is the same whether one puts climate or national security first. Biden’s LNG initiative is bad politics and worse policy.