SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This incident puts an exclamation point on concerns communities across the country have been raising for years about the dangers the CCS industry poses to public safety and drinking water," said one climate group.
Environmental groups said Friday that a newly reported leak at the first CO2 injection site in the United States highlights the threat—and false promise—of carbon capture and storage efforts, which climate advocates have long criticized as a ploy by the fossil fuel industry to preserve its extractive business model.
E&E News reported Friday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has "issued a violation notice to the operator of the country's first carbon dioxide injection wells for permanent storage, alleging that the company hasn't complied with its federal permit."
The facility operator is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), an agribusiness giant that has received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) efforts—with underwhelming results.
E&E News published a three-page notice that the EPA sent to Archer Daniels Midland, alerting the company to a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act at its CCS injection well in Decatur, Illinois.
The EPA said the company allowed "injection and formation fluids" to move into "unauthorized zones."
A spokesperson for ADM told E&E News that the company in March "detected some corrosion in a section of one of two deep monitoring wells at approximately 5,000 feet and below." According to E&E News, "that corrosion allowed CO2 and formation fluid to migrate into a formation where those liquids weren't permitted to go."
"There are significant risks at every step of the CCS process, and it's not a matter of if carbon sequestration facilities leak, but rather when."
Jim Walsh, policy director for Food & Water Watch, criticized the EPA for its "lack of transparency" surrounding the leak, adding that
"carbon dioxide injection wells are a dangerous endeavor, even if EPA does not capitulate to industry demands to rush permitting."
"This incident puts an exclamation point on concerns communities across the country have been raising for years about the dangers the CCS industry poses to public safety and drinking water," said Walsh. "The reality is this: CCS is a technologically unsound and economically unviable scheme, perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry to allow oil and gas companies to keep on drilling, keep on fracking, and keep on polluting our planet."
The Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition said in a statement Friday that the incident underscores that "there are significant risks at every step of the CCS process, and it's not a matter of if carbon sequestration facilities leak, but rather when."
"This incident demonstrates how important strict CCS regulations are to protect our communities and environment, and is exactly why we passed the CCS Protections Act in Illinois this year," the group said. "There are real concerns from many legislators, community partners, and Illinoisans who rely on public drinking water about the need for even stronger protections, and this incident shows that these concerns need to be taken seriously to ensure Illinoisians are protected to the fullest extent possible."
Concerns about leaks and other harms associated with CCS projects are expected to grow as the U.S. continues promoting them with taxpayer dollars.
"Federal and state regulators are reviewing 69 projects or permits to store CO2 underground, with 24 of those in Louisiana. Nine projects have already been approved while one more, in California, is pending," Inside Climate News reported earlier this year. "Companies plan to inject carbon dioxide into porous rock formations that are usually filled with brine containing not only extremely high salt levels but often heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and radioactive elements. Brine leaks, therefore, can be even more worrying than the escape of CO2."
"The science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals," said one campaigner.
More than 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists and researchers on Thursday implored the Biden administration to "follow legitimate science and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs," pointing to a new study showing liquefied natural gas has a 33% greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal.
"As U.S. scientists and researchers we are closely following efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Treasury to develop greenhouse gas analyses of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen, and implore you to use the best available science when conducting this analysis," the scientists wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
"The stakes could not be higher," the letter asserts. "The choices that you make relating to modeling assumptions for the heat-trapping potential of natural gas will determine if the federal government will make decisions based on climate science or wishful thinking."
The scientists continued:
The main constituent in natural gas is methane, a powerful climate-disrupting pollutant that traps more than 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years, the relevant timeframe in which we must act. We agree with President [Joe] Biden's declaration to world leaders that this is the decisive decade. As the climate crisis becomes more urgent, we are rapidly approaching planetary thresholds that, once breached, cannot be reversed.
The fossil fuel industry wants you to distort the scientific evidence and asserts, falsely, that decisions to expand natural gas production and consumption are consistent with U.S. and global climate goals. They are advocating for flawed modeling assumptions that would hide the true climate impact of gas. It is imperative that the Departments of Energy and Treasury reject these efforts.
The letter's signers cite a study published this month by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth which—when properly accounting for LNG's full life cycle, including extraction, liquefaction, transportation, and end-source combustion—found that the fracked gas has a 33% greater greenhouse emissions impact than coal.
"An abundance of scientific evidence now shows that natural gas is at least as damaging to the climate as coal and may be worse due to inevitable leaks and disproves the claim that natural gas can serve as a 'bridge fuel' while renewable energy sources ramp up," the scientists wrote.
Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement that "the science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals."
"This administration must ignore industry propaganda, follow legitimate science, and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs like LNG exports and gas-sourced hydrogen," Walsh added.
Noting that "over 20 years, methane is a far more powerful climate villain than ever previously appreciated," Science & Environmental Health Network senior scientist Sandra Steingraber said that "methane is the Houdini of greenhouse gasses, escaping into the atmosphere from all parts of the natural gas system at a pace that far exceeds earlier estimates."
"Taken together, these findings mean that the stakes for the modeling assumptions chosen for estimating the climate impacts of LNG and hydrogen fuels could not be higher," Steingraber stressed. "It's imperative that our Departments of Energy and Treasury base their climate modeling assumptions on the abundance of scientific evidence and not the distorted claims and wishful thinking of the fossil fuel industry."
Despite campaign pledges to center climate action—including by banning new fossil fuel drilling on public lands—Biden oversaw the approval of more new permits for drilling on public land during his first two years in office than former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee, did in 2017 and 2018.
The Biden administration has also held fossil fuel lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and has approved the highly controversial Willow project and Mountain Valley Pipeline. Biden also increased liquefied natural gas production and export before pausing LNG exports earlier this year.
Despite the pause—which activists are calling on the Biden administration to make permanent—the president has also overseen what climate defenders 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 that, if all completed, would make U.S. exported LNG emissions higher than the European Union's combined greenhouse gas footprint.
"As the disastrous impacts of increased fossil fuel development become more and more obvious here and around the globe," said one campaigner, "the notion of expanded LNG exports should be dismissed out of hand."
Despite the strong links between liquefied natural gas and harms to public health and the planet, the U.S. Department of Energy has approved the export of the methane-heavy gas by the fossil fuel company New Fortress Energy—leading one group to warn Tuesday that such approvals will ultimately negate any renewable energy progress the U.S. makes.
New Fortress Energy said the Biden administration had authorized it to export LNG, which is fracked gas that is liquefied in order be transported, from its offshore plant near Altamira, Mexico to non-free trade agreement companies, allowing it to send nearly 1.4 million tonnes per year for five years.
The announcement comes seven months after the Biden administration announced it was pausing LNG exports to non-FTA countries, following a push from frontline communities. The move put at least 14 pending projects on hold. The U.S. had previously been the world's largest exporter of LNG.
In July, a federal judge appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump—now the GOP's presidential nominee—blocked President Joe Biden's pause on the approvals of exports.
Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International (OCI), said the New Fortress Energy approval breaks the administration's "own commitment to pause LNG export authorizations—a commitment made out of recognition that its current guidance doesn't adequately consider the risks LNG exports pose to the climate, environment, and public health, and safety."
"The bottom line is that methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals."
"The Department of Energy's decision to approve the New Fortress LNG Terminal is deeply concerning," said Rosenbluth. "The bottom line is that methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals. No matter how much the United States invests in renewable energy, any additional export infrastructure will undermine domestic and international efforts to prevent climate catastrophe."
LNG is made predominantly of methane, which has 80 times the planet-heating potential of carbon dioxide over its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Advocates have estimated that the 14 LNG export projects that were temporarily paused by Biden could emit the same amount of greenhouse gases as 532 coal plants, contributing to premature deaths and health issues particularly for communities near LNG export terminals.
OCI denounced the approval of New Fortress' project as "reckless."
The LNG exports "will exacerbate the climate crisis, harm communities, create bigger barriers to a clean energy future, and become stranded assets that burden communities with toxic pollution, costly clean-ups, revenue shortfalls, and job losses," said Rosenbluth.
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation for Food & Water Watch, said it was "ridiculous" that the Biden administration would authorize the exports despite its ongoing review of how LNG impacts the public interest.
"The department is under no obligation to approve these ill-advised proposals, now or ever," said Jones. "As the disastrous impacts of increased fossil fuel development become more and more obvious here and around the globe, the notion of expanded LNG exports should be dismissed out of hand."