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
methane
COP30 Was Another Failed Climate Summit, But the Path Away From Fossil Fuels Is Here
The path from COP30 requires fewer pledges and more enforceable governance. Countries already know what must be done. They must do it.
Nov 30, 2025
It appeared to be a grim déjà vu when the final gavel dropped in Belem, Brazil and the COP30 text once again avoided naming fossil fuels.
But this apparent diplomatic failure obscured something more consequential: after hours of fraught, last-minute negotiations, countries reaffirmed the “United Arab Emirates consensus” from COP28 — the only UN agreement to date to reference a fossil-fuel phaseout. And the pathway it implies is already taking shape. In April, Colombia and the Netherlands will convene governments in Santa Marta, Colombia for the first global summit dedicated explicitly to the transition away from fossil fuels.
Tripling Renewable Energy, Doubling Efficiency, and Cutting Methane
At COP28 in Dubai, governments committed to tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. Combined with deep cuts to fossil methane, these pledges form a powerful trio. According to the Climate Action Tracker, fully implementing them would reduce projected warming by about 0.9°C this century, from 2.6˚C to 1.7˚C — enough to determine whether Paris Agreement targets remains within reach. If delivered, they would do more to collapse fossil-fuel demand than any language missing from the COP30 outcome text.
The energy system is already shifting. In the last two years, China has driven an unprecedented solar surge — adding more capacity in 2024 alone than the rest of the world combined, now hosting roughly half of global installed solar power, and exporting ultra-cheap panels that are flooding markets globally. As solar prices plunge, renewables are undercutting coal and gas markets globally. Doubling energy efficiency, if it can be achieved, cuts demand at a scale equivalent to adding vast new clean-power capacity, but without the economic and environmental burden of new plants.
Deep cuts to fossil methane — the primary component of gas, and a climate pollutant roughly 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over 20 years — require producers to eliminate leakage, venting, and routine flaring. These measures raise compliance costs, increase saleable gas, and make new fossil expansion harder to justify. Taken together, these commitments amount to a key part of the de facto fossil-fuel phaseout pathway.
But voluntary pledges alone won’t get us there. The Global Methane Status Report 2025 finds that despite over 150 countries endorsing the Global Methane Pledge, methane emissions continue to rise.
And even when we look beyond voluntary pledges to the domestic laws, regulations, and policy measures that represent a plan of action — as reflected in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Methane Action Plans — the gap remains enormous. Fully implementing all NDCs would cut global methane emissions by only about 8 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. That is far short of the 30 percent Global Methane Pledge goal and well below the 45 percent cut UNEP associates with keeping 1.5°C within reach.
The EU Leads the Way on Methane Regulation
The missing ingredient is enforcement — and the most important development on that front is not the Global Methane Pledge but the EU Methane Regulation.
Adopted in 2024, the EU rules apply not only to methane emitted within Europe but also to imported fossil fuels. Because the EU is the world’s largest importer of oil and gas — and its suppliers account for roughly 30 percent of global oil and gas methane emissions — these rules may do more to cut global methane than any voluntary pledge ever could. For the first time, countries exporting gas and oil to Europe must meet strict leak-detection, monitoring, and venting and flaring requirements. Non-compliant fuels can effectively be shut out of the EU market.
This is regulatory gravity: when the world’s largest buyer sets a standard, producers must adapt or lose access.
Some already have. Companies like ConocoPhillips have set near-zero methane-intensity targets by 2030 and earned top-tier marks for emissions reporting — clear signals that they intend to compete under strict import regimes. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel trade groups are lobbying aggressively to weaken the EU rules, arguing they threaten U.S. LNG exports. Investors disagree: in October, asset managers representing over €4.5 trillion urged the EU not to dilute nor delay its methane law, highlighting methane as a material financial risk.
The deeper truth is that the EU methane rules are already going beyond the Global Methane Pledge and achieving reductions in fossil-methane emissions across borders, backed by market access and legal penalties rather than voluntary promises.
Science points in the same direction. The International Energy Agency concludes that methane from fossil-fuel operations could be cut by around 75 percent by 2030 using technologies available today. Combined with renewable and efficiency pledges, these reductions undermine the economic case for expanding fossil-fuel production. New LNG terminals, oil fields, and long-lived gas infrastructure would rapidly become uneconomic — stranded assets in the making.
Pledges Are Not a Plan
Methane is responsible for roughly a third to a half of today’s warming, and because it is short-lived, rapid reductions can deliver measurable cooling within a decade. Without binding limits on fossil methane, the world cannot meet its climate goals, no matter how fast renewable energy grows.
This is the real lesson of COP30: pledges are not a plan. Tripling renewables, doubling efficiency, and slashing methane can transform global energy systems — but only if they are backed by binding rules, border measures, and enforcement. The EU methane regulations represent the first serious attempt at such enforcement.
The next opportunity to broaden that effort will not come at COP31, but in April 2026, when Colombia and the Netherlands co-host the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta.
It will be the first global summit to center the production side of the climate crisis. And it exists because grassroots movements made it unavoidable: years of pressure from youth organizers, Indigenous land defenders, and frontline communities pushed governments and companies toward positions once dismissed as radical — including today’s mainstream demand for a fair, full fossil fuel phaseout. Santa Marta is happening not as a symbolic gesture, but because people insisted on real action.
If COP30 could not bring itself to state that fossil fuels must be phased out, Santa Marta can. And it can ground that commitment in the tools governments have already endorsed: accelerated renewables, deep efficiency gains, and enforceable methane standards — led, in practice, by the EU.
For the United States, the moment is defining. Federal methane rules are being dismantled. But U.S. states need not wait. Colorado, New Mexico, and California already have some of the strongest methane rules in the world. By aligning with Europe’s approach — and sending governors or senior officials to Santa Marta — they can help build a transatlantic coalition for binding methane limits and an orderly fossil-fuel phase-down.
The path from COP30 requires fewer pledges and more enforceable governance. Countries already know what must be done. The task now is to turn an implicit roadmap into a binding framework capable of delivering the cuts that matter most — starting with methane in the oil and gas sector.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Finalizes 'Indefensible and Illegal' Delay to Methane Pollution Standards
"The Trump administration has once again chosen polluters over people, sacrificing the health of communities and climate to serve the fossil fuel industry," said one advocate.
Nov 27, 2025
With methane more than 28 times as potent as carbon at trapping heat in the atmosphere in a 100-year period, climate experts agree that reducing methane leaks from oil and gas fields would be one of the fastest and most effective ways of making a measurable impact on planetary heating—but President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday flatly refused to do so, instead announcing a delay on a requirement for fossil fuel companies to limit methane emissions.
The Biden administration had introduced the requirement for oil and gas firms to begin reducing their emissions this year, but the EPA said companies will now have until January 2027 to comply with the rule. The administration is also considering repealing the requirement entirely.
Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, called the delay "indefensible and illegal."
"The Trump administration has once again chosen polluters over people, sacrificing the health of communities and climate to serve the fossil fuel industry," said Pagel. “Every day national methane rules are delayed means more methane in the air, more toxic pollution in our lungs, and more irreversible climate damage."
The EPA claimed it was providing companies with a "more realistic timeline" for complying with the requirement, and said the action would "save an estimated $750 million over 11 years in compliance costs."
Methane can leak from oil and gas wells, pipelines, and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and companies often intentionally release methane through flaring. The fossil fuel industry is the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the US, where emissions of methane have risen sharply in recent years as the Biden administration oversaw record production of oil and gas, even as it sought to reduce emissions through the methane requirement and other regulations.
While saving money for fossil fuel companies, the delay on the rule could lead to 3.8 million more tons of methane entering the atmosphere, according to the Trump administration's own estimates.
"After years of scientific work and public engagement, this administration’s decision to delay methane pollution standards implementation yet again is a blatant act of climate denial and disregard for public health. The EPA’s job is to protect people, not pad the pockets of oil and gas executives," said Pagel.
In addition to contributing to global heating and the extreme flooding, hurricanes, heatwaves, and other destructive weather events that come with it, methane emissions are linked to higher ground-level ozone pollution made up of tiny particles that can cause respiratory and cardiac problems, cancer, and strokes.
Grace Smith, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), noted that the methane standards have already been working "to reduce pollution, protect people’s health, and prevent the needless waste of American energy"—progress that will now be reversed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Trump.
“The rule released today means millions of Americans will be exposed to dangerous pollution for another year and a half, for no good reason,” said Smith. “Delaying the methane standards threatens people’s health and undermines progress by industry leaders.”
“What’s more, the Trump administration rushed to push through this harmful rule without meaningful transparency or a chance for the public to weigh in,” added Smith. “EDF is already in court challenging EPA’s first attempt to delay these vital protections. We will continue to oppose the rule released today, so that people can breathe cleaner air.”
EDF and the grassroots group Moms Clean Air Force expressed particular concern over nearly 18 million people in the US who live near active oil and gas wells.
"Children in my community and across the nation need a strong and comprehensive oil and gas methane rule as soon as possible," said Patrice Tomcik, senior national field director for Moms Clean Air Force.
EDF noted that "proven, cost-effective solutions are available to help oil and gas operators meet the standards while reducing waste and monetary losses," and both large and small producers have expressed support for the federal methane regulation as fossil fuel-producing states have begun implementing the standards.
The rule announced Wednesday, said EDF, "ignores the strong opposition to the rule from members of impacted communities and wide variety of other Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Isn’t Leading at COP30—But It Is Un-Damming Its Way to Climate Resilience
By removing obsolete dams, the US is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience.
Nov 20, 2025
As delegates huddle in Belém, Brazil for the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, they are considering how to prevent runaway climate change, and also how to bolster resilience to extreme weather. The United States won’t have much to offer officially—the Trump administration has said it won’t send any high-level delegates. And with President Donald Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement earlier this year, the country is far from a climate leader these days.
But all is not lost. Local level climate work continues in the United States, with accomplishments worth cheering—and replicating. For the last few years, I’ve tracked one of the most overlooked: the removal of harmful and obsolete dams. The United States has been leading the global charge on dam removals. In just the last 25 years nearly 2,000 dams have been blasted and backhoed from our rivers and streams.
Dam removals, like the four-dam effort completed last year on the Klamath River, are often celebrated for helping imperiled fish, like salmon. But they also offer two important benefits for the climate.
The first is reducing emissions. A growing body of scientific research dating back to the 1990s has found that reservoirs from dams can produce greenhouse gas emissions, some on par with thermal power plants. The biggest culprit is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps 80 times more heat as carbon dioxide over 20 years. As organic material breaks down in a reservoir, methane is diffused from the water into the air.
Dam removals aren’t a climate cure-all, but the magnitude of the crisis we face will require all the tools we can muster—and master.
As we take stock of our greenhouse gas emissions, an honest accounting of the input from dams could help us make reductions where dams are unneeded, unsafe, or doing more harm than good. In some states there are thousands of “deadbeat” dams, which serve no purpose at all anymore, and should be put on the chopping block. And if you’re wondering if it makes sense to remove infrastructure that can produce “clean” energy, know that the vast majority of large US dams—upward of 97%—don’t produce power.
The second is strengthening resilience. Many dams are outdated, dilapidated, or not designed to handle the onslaught of water that comes with climate-amplified storms. Some have already failed, risking lives and costing millions. After Hurricane Helene slammed North Carolina last year, 40 dams were damaged or destroyed. Expect to see more of that. A recent report from researchers at Utah State University found that incidents of dam failures or interventions needed to prevent failures are skyrocketing. From 1990 to 1999 we averaged two such incidents a year. That number jumped to an average of 50 a year from 2020 to 2023.
After two years of dangerous floods, Vermont has gotten the message. Last year the state passed a law to identify dams that worsen flooding and create a fund to remove them. Other states are also assessing dam removal to boost climate resilience. Removing damaging dams and helping rivers reconnect with their floodplains can help protect communities from severe weather and save money.
Dam removals offer other climate resilience benefits. Dams hold back water, but they also block the movement of sediment, which depletes coastal beaches and speeds erosion. One of the most notorious examples is the Matilija Dam near Ojai, California, a now-defunct dam that has corralled nearly 9 million cubic yards of sediment. Removing Matilija would reinvigorate downstream beaches in Ventura. As rising seas eat away at ocean beaches, upstream dam removals can help protect coastal communities.
Dams also change the temperature of rivers. As climate change pushes up the mercury, some reservoirs are becoming more like bathtubs. Higher water temperatures can foster toxic algal blooms that threaten human health and kill wildlife. Dam removals can flip the script, helping to restore more natural stream temperatures and flows, improving water quality in rivers that millions of Americans rely on for drinking water. It can also support biodiversity by enabling aquatic animals to find cooler upstream waters to better weather our changing climate.
Dam removals aren’t a climate cure-all, but the magnitude of the crisis we face will require all the tools we can muster—and master. Several decades of dam removals across the US has proved they work to restore rivers better and faster than anything else. Now let’s put them to use for climate action, too
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Villains Deserve the Hell They're Making on Earth
Reincarnation on a future overheated Earth might be an appropriate "reward" for government and private leaders responsible for obstructing the progress of green energy.
Oct 04, 2025
As imagined by Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) in The Divine Comedy, Hell has nine levels, with the lowest reserved for the very worst souls. Although it is no longer fashionable to believe that Hell exists, we can't prove that it doesn't. And it is generally thought that among its tortures for condemned souls are extremely high temperatures.
If the climate continues heating up we may create hellish conditions right here on an overheated Earth. Would it be appropriate for those responsible for allowing this to happen to end in an actual Hell? As the Lord High Executioner sings in The Mikado, "My object all sublime... is to make the punishment fit the crime."
Or perhaps the guilty parties could be reincarnated on the unpleasant future Earth they are helping create. Like Hell, which no one can prove does not exist, no one has ever proved that reincarnation is impossible.
So in case there is no Hell, Earth itself might take care of inflicting cosmic justice.
I imagine that Hell, if it exists, or a future overheated Earth, will have ample room for guilty members of Congress and the Supreme Court; coal, gas, and oil company executives; and the like.
Of course as a mere mortal human being, I cannot claim to be a perfect judge of my fellow mortals. But it seems to me that many current American leaders will bear heavy responsibility if we do not curb global warming in time to avoid catastrophe. I say leaders in the plural here deliberately, since no one person—not even a president—could do the damage currently being done by American policy without the help of other leaders.
I imagine that Hell, if it exists, or a future overheated Earth, will have ample room for guilty members of Congress and the Supreme Court; coal, gas, and oil company executives; and the like.
President Donald Trump began his second administration by withdrawing the US again from the Paris Agreement to fight climate change. Although "only" a symbolic action, it telegraphed the new administration's intentions to sabotage green energy.
Non-symbolic actions quickly followed. It is bad enough that the government has been canceling subsidy programs designed to hasten the day when solar and wind energy replace coal, oil, and gas.
Far worse, the administration is trying to prevent completion of major wind farms that are already largely built and in which people have invested billions of dollars. This makes no sense economically and will increase the electricity shortages already causing big increases in consumer prices.
And the administration is canceling permissions for new green projects that government agencies had already granted.
Worse still is the administration's attempt to force other countries to halt their own policies aimed at replacing dirty electricity with green electricity, using tariff rates as bargaining chips. As long as only the US slows down needed reforms, the rest of the world could at least move forward.
From a geopolitical point of view, recent US policies are making China look better and better, as it appears destined to dominate production of green energy and electric vehicles. The US continues to dominate declining industries like coal, gas, and oil—the modern equivalents of buggy whips.
Perhaps most outrageous of all (so far!) is the administration's attempt to turn off functioning satellites already in orbit that can measure carbon dioxide and methane—the chief warming agents in the atmosphere—as an "economy" measure!
Economy measure?! As "Swami Beyondananda" recently put it, "If we lose the Earth, there goes the GDP."
In the same vein, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency now proposes to stop requiring corporations to measure and report the amount of greenhouse gases they are releasing into the atmosphere.
The administration is also trying to close down its Mauna Loa installation in Hawaii and three other places measuring greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
Apparently the administration fears that all these measurements will undermine its already feeble arguments that it is safe to continue burning coal, oil, and gas to produce the power required by modern civilization.
As I noted earlier, reincarnation on a future overheated Earth might be an appropriate "reward" for government and private leaders responsible for obstructing the progress of green energy.
But from another point of view, an actual Hell might provide more justice for them.
Hell has no air conditioners.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Call to Conscience': Damning Report Shows Every Major US LNG Project Fails Climate Test
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate."
Jul 09, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump ramps up fossil fuel production under his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, a report published Wednesday highlights the climate and financial harms posed by new liquefied natural gas export projects—all of which fail a "climate test" that the Department of Energy issued during the Biden administration.
The report—published by Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International—examines five major U.S. LNG projects: Venture Global CP2, Cameron LNG Phase II, Sabine Pass Stage V, Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Midscale 8-9, and Freeport LNG Expansion.
Instead of giving into Trump’s pressure to import + finance more LNG, leaders must invest in a just transition to renewable energy that will protect our communities from deadly pollution and climate disasters. Learn more: www.greenpeace.org/usa/failing-...
[image or embed]
— Oil Change International (@oilchange.bsky.social) July 9, 2025 at 6:57 AM
All but one of the projects is awaiting a final investment decision. None passes a "climate test" derived from the Department of Energy's (DOE) December 2024 LNG export public interest studies, as they all would result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regardless of sustainability measures including supply basin switching, LNG terminal methane abatement, and powering liquefaction with renewable electricity.
"Increasing LNG exports from the Gulf Coast would still lead to global GHG emissions increases above the level consistent with the DOE's most stringent climate mitigation scenario," the report states. Data suggests "no realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC," the more ambitious goal of the Paris climate agreement. Trump has twice withdrawn the United States from the landmark accord.
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate," Greenpeace USA senior research specialist Andres Chang, the report's lead author, said in a statement.
"The massive growth in infrastructure along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast has already created significant public health and ecosystem impacts, threatening entire coastal communities," Chang added. "But it doesn't stop there. This report shows that if built, these projects would put global climate goals even further out of reach."
"No realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC."
The United States is the world's leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a "bridge fuel"—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Despite his own DOE's acknowledgment that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis, former President Joe Biden oversaw what climate campaigners called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects.
Trump—who during his 2024 campaign vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill" as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers—is planning to increase LNG exports even more, in part by invoking his bogus "energy emergency" to fast-track polluting projects.
A report published in January by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration sought to fast-track and found they would create 510 million metric tons of climate pollution—equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants.
Oil Change International noted Wednesday that "future administrations could revoke export authorizations that were rubber-stamped under Trump based on their failure to pass the DOE 'climate test,' which introduces a new layer of uncertainty to these already-risky projects."
The report also underscores that while the DOE climate test "is a major improvement upon previous federal analyses," its methodology "still fails to sufficiently account for emissions from large, accidental releases (such as 'super-emitter' events), equipment malfunction, and malpractice."
"High rates of methane emissions during the ocean transport stage of the LNG supply chain are also not represented," the report adds. "Incorporating measurement-based data and more realistic assumptions would make clearer the immense climate impact of building new liquefied gas infrastructure, especially in the near-term."
The report's authors call on the DOE to invoke the "climate test" to reject pending and future LNG export applications and exercise its authority under the Natural Gas Act "to reevaluate the public interest status of LNG projects that received authorizations without consideration of climate impacts or under analyses that predate the 2024 LNG Study."
The publication also calls on Congress to pass legislation "that makes it a statutory requirement under the Natural Gas Act to assess the climate impact of gas exports and reject applications that would increase global GHG emissions under a credible scenario to limit warming to 1.5ºC."
"Additionally, U.S. federal agencies should require all new proposed fossil fuel production and infrastructure projects to meet a similarly high standard under the National Environmental Policy Act," the report asserts.
"Energy purchasers, financial institutions, and foreign governments should refrain from entering into long-term offtake agreements for U.S. LNG and financing of LNG infrastructure," the authors wrote. "Instead, these parties should prioritize measures that accelerate the renewable energy transition and plan for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels. Group of Seven nations, in particular, should abide by their 2022 commitment to stop financing overseas fossil fuel infrastructure with taxpayer money."
James Hiatt, founder and director of the Lake Charles, Louisiana-based advocacy group For a Better Bayou, said Wednesday that "fossil fuel dependency has long externalized its true costs, forcing communities to bear the burden of pollution, sickness, and economic instability."
"For decades the oil and gas industry has known about the devastating health and climate impacts of its operations, yet it continues to expand, backed by billions in private and public financing," Hiatt continued. "These harms are not isolated—they're systemic, and they threaten all of us."
"This report is a call to conscience," he added. "It's time we stop propping up deadly false solutions and start investing in a transition to energy systems that sustain life, not sacrifice it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rio Grande LNG Expansion: a Lose-Lose Proposition
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
May 26, 2025
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Scrub Sad Facts Away': The Yes Men Target LNG Greenwashing With New Satirical Ad
"We are hoping Maritime Executive's readership are reminded that investing in a fuel that will expedite the rapid decline of life on the planet is not a good look (or a good investment)," one spokesperson said.
Feb 28, 2025
When readers of The Maritime Executive peruse the magazine's latest issue on Friday, they will be in for a surprise.
Page 15 of the magazine displays an ad for GreenCurrent Group, which bills itself as a "full service communications and marketing agency specializing in supporting commercial maritime operators and energy providers investing in LNG [liquefied natural gas]—the most exciting and misunderstood marine fuel."
But when curious maritime or energy executives follow the QR code at the bottom-right corner of the ad, they will discover that no such company exists. Instead, they will be directed to a satirical video commercial for "Scrubby Greenwash," a giant anthropomorphic green sponge that promises to "scrub, scrub, scrub sad facts away."
The false ad and video are the latest hijinks from underground activist collective The Yes Men, who have used humor and pranks to target corporate wrong-doing since 1996.
"We are hoping Maritime Executive's readership are reminded that investing in a fuel that will expedite the rapid decline of life on the planet is not a good look (or a good investment)," The Yes Men's Natalie Whiteman told Common Dreams.
The Yes Men first made waves more than three decades ago with a mock World Trade Organization website that got taken seriously enough to win them an invitation to a real-world conference. Since then, they have used creative deceptions to call attention to various social, economic, and political issues from high drug prices to lack of accountability for the Bhopal disaster.
"We need industry leaders, energy producers, and all players across the supply chain to reject LNG as a climate solution."
Many of their past actions have targeted fossil fuel companies and raised awareness about environmental issues such as the climate emergency and corporate greenwashing. Over the past year, they have begun campaigning around LNG specifically.
"We've always been in favor of generally keeping living things still alive, and methane is going to make all of that not happen much faster," Whiteman said. "We thought hey, that's not cool at all."
"LNG is a massive issue," Whiteman continued. "and the industry is pouring enormous resources into convincing the public that LNG is a green fuel when in fact LNG is methane, with a warming capacity 80 times more powerful than CO2, that leaks across practically every step of the supply chain."
To tackle this issue, the group has taken Scrubby Greenwash on tour to major cities around the world.
How did they come up with the character?
"Greenwashing is the process of scrubbing inconvenient facts and science away to protect the reputation of a company," Whiteman explained. "It's a process of sanitizing their image with marketing, and so a delirious looking slimy sponge seems like the sensible choice."
Whiteman said that Scrubby was "building up a rabid fanbase all over the world" while "targeted companies don't seem nearly grateful enough for the services he provides in protecting their image."
The group also crashed the World LNG Summit in Berlin in December under the guise of a Royal Caribbean executive. They managed to hold a few one-on-one meetings and earn a panel invitation before being found out, in an adventure that will be fully shared in a documentary to be released next year.
Their focus on LNG parallels the work of more traditional climate activists, who have been sounding the alarm about its planet-warming potential and urging governments to curb the buildout of new LNG infrastructure.
However, following the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, there has been backsliding on the regulatory end, with Trump declaring an energy emergency to stimulate more fossil fuel extraction and lifting a Biden-era pause on new LNG export approvals. On Wednesday, the European Union also announced a plan to fund new LNG exports, which was interpreted by some as a concession to Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda.
The Yes Men's latest fake ad targets not governments, but shipping and LNG companies directly.
The false ad placed by The Yes Men in The Maritime Executive.
In the video ad, a table of men in suits sit around a table in "liquefied natural gas headquarters" as a news item announces, "A new investigation has revealed that cruise liners powered by liquefied natural gas produce more global warming than those powered by regular marine fuel. That's because methane leaks at every point in the supply chain, and gas traps 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide."
The newscaster continues, "That's bad news for everyone, but especially for the luxury cruise lines, like Royal Caribbean, which have been marketing themselves as green," at which point the camera pans over to a Royal Caribbean representative in a captain's uniform. "If the industry doesn't act fast, this information could hurt their bottom line."
It's at this point that the executives pick up the phone to call in the assistance of Scrubby, who comes bursting through a brick wall Kool-Aid style.
Whiteman said The Yes Men chose to target Maritime Executive and Royal Caribbean in particular because "the trade media is complicit in propagating the greenwashing that protects LNG's false reputation as a clean fuel. And the fact that Royal Caribbean is marketing their LNG-powered mega ships as sustainable is a criminal untruth, when they could be investing in zero-emissions alternatives or other efficiency measures.'
Ultimately, Whiteman told Common Dreams, "We need industry leaders, energy producers, and all players across the supply chain to reject LNG as a climate solution. It has proven to be anything but."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'When Big Oil Says Jump, Republicans Ask How High?' GOP Sends Climate-Killing Bill to Trump's Desk
"It's a sorry testament to the influence of Big Oil on Capitol Hill that one of the top priorities of Congress is a blatant handout to the worst actors in the fossil fuel industry," said one critic.
Feb 28, 2025
Climate advocates are blasting congressional Republicans this week for their latest gift to the fossil fuel industry: sending a resolution to kill the federal Methane Emissions Reduction Program to the desk of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Big Oil-backed Trump is expected to sign the Congressional Review Act resolution, which senators passed along party lines on Thursday. That followed a Wednesday vote in the House of Representatives, where Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Vincente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), Kristen Donald Rivet (Mich.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) supported the measure alongside all Republicans present except Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Methane has more than 80 times as much warming power as carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere. The pollution program was established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last November. The Associated Press reported Thursday that "most major oil and gas companies do not release enough methane to trigger the fee, which is $900 per ton, an amount that would increase to $1,500 by 2026."
The GOP resolution will end the program, but not the mandate from the 2022 law. Mahyar Sorour, Sierra Club's director of beyond fossil fuels policy, declared that "this attack on EPA's implementation of the methane waste emissions charge is short-sighted and harmful. It remains a legal requirement for EPA to hold the biggest methane polluters accountable for their negligence."
"Forcing the agency to implement the charge some other way after conducting a thorough, well-researched process is as wasteful of taxpayer resources as these oil and gas operators are wasteful of harmful methane," Sorour argued. "Technology to monitor and stop leaks is readily available and easy to implement, so only wasteful, careless corporations will face a fee for excessive methane pollution. Despite this setback, Sierra Club will not stop fighting to make polluters pay for their egregious actions."
The resolution hit Trump's desk just over a month after his return to office. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said that "it's a sorry testament to the influence of Big Oil on Capitol Hill that one of the top priorities of Congress is a blatant handout to the worst actors in the fossil fuel industry. Congress is showing its hypocrisy by claiming to seek to rein in government spending, while voting to repeal a revenue-raising fee that only applies to wasteful oil and gas companies."
"The methane fee was paired with a $1.5 billion government spending program to help oil and gas companies reduce harmful emissions," noted Slocum, who then took aim at Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency. "Voting to repeal the fee while allowing profitable corporations to pocket hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars is an affront to the millions of working Americans disrupted by indiscriminate DOGE cost-cutting."
"It should not be too much to ask fossil fuel producers to do the bare minimum to capture leaking methane," he added. "Any child knows that when you make a mess, you should clean it up. The fee was intended to be a key part of enforcing standards on an industry that has repeatedly cut corners in its endless drive to extract more fossil fuels."
Critics highlighted how the rollback is expected to affect not only the warming planet but also public health. Moms Clean Air Force national field director Patrice Tomcik said that "as a mother living with oil and gas operations in my neighborhood, I have concerns about the impact of oil and gas pollution on the health of my children and neighbors."
"Polling shows that support for stronger standards on oil and gas operations is widespread across the country, including in oil and gas states, such as Pennsylvania, where my family lives," Tomcik pointed out. "Protecting the air our children breathe and combating the global heating fueling extreme weather should be nonnegotiable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Gulf South Activists to Japan: 'Enough Is Enough' When It Comes to Bankrolling LNG
As we meet with Japanese financial institutions and policymakers, we carry a clear message: The human cost of Japan's LNG investments can no longer be ignored.
Jan 29, 2025
The United States is at a political crossroads, with President Donald Trump and his allies promising to accelerate fossil fuel expansion. We write with urgency about the devastating impact of Japanese-funded methane gas exports on our communities.
As I, Manning Rollerson, stepped off a plane in Tokyo this week, I carry with me the stories of five generations of family who have watched our Texas Gulf South community transform into what can only be described as a "sacrifice zone." I am a Black community rights activist and founder of Freeport Haven Project for Environmental Justice. I have watched my historically Black community bear the brunt of industrial pollution for far too long. With 27 grandchildren, this fight is deeply personal. When our children are born with cancer and breathing issues, there should be accountability. That's why I'm here in Japan—to say enough is enough.
We are part of a delegation of frontline residents from the U.S. Gulf South traveling to Japan to confront the financial institutions bankrolling liquefied natural gas (LNG) expansion in their communities. Our mission comes at a critical moment, as Japanese banks line up to expand terminals like Cameron LNG in Louisiana.
Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.
The evidence we bring is compelling and direct. I, Sharon Wilson, spent 12 years in the oil industry before becoming an environmental investigator for Oilfield Witness. Using specialized optical gas imaging cameras, I've documented methane releases from Japanese-financed gas and LNG facilities. "If only people could see what's here, smell the air, drink the water, visualize the emissions, this wouldn't be happening," I can say with certainty. "The public would not stand for it."
Others, like Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana's Vessel Project and a Black mother living in Sulphur, could not be with us in person but are with us in spirit: The journey to Japan is deeply personal. "My children face severe health conditions caused by pollution the oil and gas industry unleashes into our air and water," she says. "We cannot allow our communities to bear the burden of fossil fuel racism any longer."
Japanese institutions have emerged as the leading financiers of U.S. LNG export infrastructure. Private banks like MUFG are backing new projects like Rio Grande LNG near Port Isabel, Texas, while companies like Mitsui continue acquiring Texas gas fields—even as research shows exported LNG has a 33% greater climate impact than coal.
The Japanese government is the largest public financier of U.S. LNG. Japanese private banks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC are the top three private financiers of U.S. LNG, providing over $35 billion. Japanese institutions, such as the Nippon Export and Investment Insurance, are considering providing financing for the expansion of the Cameron LNG export terminal, while Japanese companies JERA and INPEX have signed offtake contracts for the Calcasieu Pass 2 project.
For us, this trip represents more than just advocacy—it's about bringing the reality of our communities directly to those making decisions half a world away. Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.
Our timing is strategic, coming just after Trump advisers signed an executive order to restart LNG export approvals—even as Japan positions itself as a clean energy leader in Asia while simultaneously pushing for expanded methane gas infrastructure across the region. There's no such thing as clean gas. Methane is intentionally released and blasted into our atmosphere from the moment a hole is drilled into the ground. This isn't about leaks—it's about a fundamentally dirty industry that cannot operate without massive pollution. And now, with Trump's team plotting to restart permits, our communities face even greater threats.
As we meet with Japanese financial institutions and policymakers, we carry a clear message: The human cost of Japan's LNG investments can no longer be ignored. Despite the threat of a fossil fuel-friendly administration, we have proven our resilience. We stopped LNG projects before, and we will do it again. This time, we're taking our fight directly to the source of the money. Human rights abuses are being committed in our Gulf South communities in the United States—and Japanese money is making it possible. We will not stop fighting until our communities are safe from harm.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expanding LNG Over Renewable Energy Is Economic and National Security Failure: Report
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions."
Jan 17, 2025
As Republican President-elect Donald Trump prepares to further accelerate already near-record liquefied natural gas exports after taking office next week, a report published Friday details how soaring U.S. foreign LNG sales are "causing price volatility and environmental and safety risks for American families in addition to granting geopolitical advantages to the Chinese government."
The report, Strategic Implications of U.S. LNG Exports, was published by the American Security Project, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, and offers a "comprehensive analysis of the impact of the natural gas export boom from the advent of fracking through the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and provides insight into how the tidal wave of U.S. exports in the global market is altering regional and domestic security environments."
According to a summary of the publication:
The United States is the world's leading producer of natural gas and largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Over the past decade, affordable U.S. LNG exports have facilitated a global shift from coal and mitigated the geopolitical risks of fossil fuel imports from Russia and the Middle East. Today, U.S. LNG plays a critical role in diversifying global energy supplies and reducing reliance on adversarial energy suppliers. However, rising global dependence on natural gas is creating new vulnerabilities, including pricing fluctuations, shipping route bottlenecks, and inherent health, safety, and environmental hazards. The U.S. also faces geopolitical challenges related to the LNG trade, including China's stockpiling and resale of cheap U.S. LNG exports to advance its renewable energy industry and expand its global influence.
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions," the report states.
American Security Project CEO Matthew Wallin said in a statement that "action needs to be taken to ensure Americans are insulated from global price shocks, the impacts of climate change, and new health and safety risks."
"Our country must also do more to protect its interests from geopolitical rivals like China that subsidize their growth and influence by reselling cheap U.S. LNG at higher spot prices," Wallin asserted. "U.S. LNG has often been depicted as a transition fuel, and our country must ensure that it continues working towards that transition to clean sources instead of becoming dependent on yet another vulnerable fuel source."
Critics have
warned that LNG actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Despite President Joe Biden's 2024 pause on LNG export permit applications, his administration has presided over what climate campaigners have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects. Last month, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis.
In addition to promising to roll back Biden's recent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal territory, Trump—who has nominated a bevy of fossil fuel proponents for his Cabinet—is expected to further increase LNG production and exports.
A separate report published Friday by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration is expected to fast-track, creating 510 million metric tons of climate pollution–"equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants."
While campaigning for president, Trump vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill." This, as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers, according to The New York Times.
"This research reveals the disturbing reality of an LNG export boom under a second Trump term," Friends of the Earth senior energy campaigner Raena Garcia said in a statement referring to her group's new report. "This reality will cement higher energy prices for Americans and push the world into even more devastating climate disasters. The incoming administration is poised to haphazardly greenlight LNG exports that are clearly intended to put profit over people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy