Ahead of a planned Tuesday evening vote on U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin\u0026#039;s permitting reform proposal, a new analysis shows that increased fossil fuel pollution resulting from the plan would \u0022wipe out\u0022 any possible climate benefits from emissions-reducing projects.\r\n\r\n\u0022Striking as they are, these numbers are likely an underestimate of the total emissions the permitting legislation would unlock.\u0022\r\n\r\nOil Change International (OCI) found that approving new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities and the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) \u0022could lead to hundreds of millions of additional tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.\u0022\r\n\r\nThe MVP—which is specifically mentioned in the Energy Independence and Security Act that Manchin (D-W.Va.) unveiled last week—and 10 proposed LNG projects going through the federal permit process would collectively emit 665 million metric tons of CO2e annually, according to OCI.\r\n\r\n\u0022This figure is over five times the potential emissions reductions resulting from the construction of 22 transmission line projects that proponents have suggested the bill is supposed to facilitate (119 million metric tons),\u0022 the group highlighted, noting that the MVP alone \u0022would negate 75% of that\u0022 while the most polluting LNG project would emit more than the estimated savings.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u0022Striking as they are, these numbers are likely an underestimate of the total emissions the permitting legislation would unlock, because they only include currently proposed fossil fuel projects,\u0022 OCI added, explaining that if Manchin\u0026#039;s measure passes, \u0022fossil fuel companies could be encouraged to propose even more polluting projects, anticipating an easier permitting process thanks to a weakened National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\u0022\r\n\r\n\u0022A number of members of Congress have suggested that while they oppose the negative impacts of Manchin\u0026#039;s proposed legislation on communities and local environments, the bill is worth passing because of the potential climate savings. This analysis directly undercuts that argument,\u0022 the group concluded. \u0022While more transmission is most certainly needed, the potential benefits from Manchin\u0026#039;s dirty deal are hypothetical and undetermined—but the resulting harms are concrete, calculable, and very high.\u0022\r\n\r\nIn a series of tweets on OCI\u0026#039;s findings, Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn pointed out how Manchin\u0026#039;s \u0022dirty side deal,\u0022 as it\u0026#039;s come to be known by critics, directly conflicts with the stated goals of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that Manchin only agreed to back in exchange for a vote on the permitting reform.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u0022This analysis shows that Manchin\u0026#039;s dirty deal directly undercuts the potential carbon savings of the IRA by fast-tracking fossil fuel projects currently waiting on permits,\u0022 said Henn. \u0022I think this data shows that climate hawks should vote *NO* on this dirty deal.\u0022\r\n\r\n\u0022The climate savings are illusory, the costs are real, and the politics are terrible,\u0022 he added. \u0022Vote no—and then let\u0026#039;s get to work on real changes... together.\u0022\r\n\r\nThe Lever on Tuesday tied the new analysis to its reporting earlier this month that congressional staffers and environmental groups say \u0022they have seen no reliable analyses comprehensively quantifying the climate effects of the initiative to expand oil and gas infrastructure.\u0022\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) pushed for the side deal to be included in a must-pass government funding bill but early Tuesday evening Manchin asked him to remove it, signaling that it did not have the votes to pass.\r\n\r\n\u0022The fact that emissions projections for Schumer\u0026#039;s side deal have not been discussed either in private or in public point to the reality of what\u0026#039;s at stake here,\u0022 Jim Walsh of the group Food and Water Watch told The Lever.\r\n\r\n\u0022Schumer and Manchin\u0026#039;s deal is not talking about clean energy; it\u0026#039;s a fossil fuel payday,\u0022 he added, noting some details about a draft that leaked before the proposal\u0026#039;s release last week. \u0022Any effort to spin that increased pollution as emissions reduction would be just that—spin.\u0022\r\n\r\nAs Henn told the outlet, \u0022Just looking at a couple pipelines and our public lands gives you a sense of how much damage this could do.\u0022\r\n\r\nThis post has been updated to include a request to remove the permitting bill from the stopgap funding legislation.