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
gulf coast
Trump, Fossil Fuels, and Insurers Are Making Hurricane Season Even More Dangerous
With the federal government abdicating its responsibility, state and local leaders must step up. They have the power and duty to act.
Aug 23, 2025
A deadly storm has already claimed at least 120 lives and caused widespread devastation in Texas. Hurricane Erin has now unleashed catastrophic flooding in North Carolina before racing toward the Northeast—and hurricane season has only just begun. Storms are growing more destructive, driven by fossil fuels that warm our oceans and destabilize the climate, while the vulnerable petrochemical infrastructure in their path multiplies the danger. As the storms strengthen, US protections are unraveling, leaving millions exposed.
Every year, hurricanes grow more intense—fueled by warming oceans and a rapidly changing climate driven by fossil fuels. But it’s not just the storms becoming more dangerous. It’s the fossil fuel infrastructure in their path. It’s the toxic pollution released when storms strike. It’s the insurance companies abandoning communities in the aftermath. And it’s the US government retreating from its duty to protect.
The Gulf Coast—home to more than 84% of US plastics’ production and to nearly half of US petroleum refining capacity—is bracing for more than five major hurricanes predicted for the Atlantic Ocean this year. With each hurricane comes the risk of fires, explosions, and toxic releases—not just for these facilities, but for the surrounding communities. More than 870 highly hazardous chemical facilities are located within 50 miles of the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast, and more than 4 million residents and 1,500 schools sit within a 1.5-mile radius of a high-risk chemical facility in the region.
Nationally, 39% of the US population lives within 3 miles of a high-risk chemical facility.
And yet, as we brace for the next deadly storm, US President Donald Trump has axed critical weather forecasting jobs and announced plans to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) altogether, leaving communities even more vulnerable in the face of escalating disaster.
But the threats don’t stop there. The US government is systematically dismantling our first line of defense. Since Trump took office in 2024, the administration has:
- Cut staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, weakening our ability to forecast storms and warn the public;
- Dismantled the Chemical Safety Board, which investigates chemical disasters to prevent future ones;
- Proposed rolling back the Risk Management Program (RMP), which requires nearly 12,000 high-risk chemical facilities to plan for disasters, protect workers, and inform communities;
- Warned they will phase out FEMA, leaving frontline communities to weather storms and rebuild without aid; and
- Deleted the RMP public data tool, cutting off public access to health and safety information.
A Climate of Injustice
Fossil fuel infrastructure isn’t just at risk during storms—it supercharges the storms themselves. The industry is a major driver of global warming, accelerating the rising temperatures and warming oceans that exacerbate hurricanes. And even as storms grow more destructive, the industry is doubling down: 80% of proposed new petrochemical projects are sited within 20 miles of a hurricane or tropical storm’s path over the past decade. This means entire corridors already battered by climate disasters are being locked into even greater danger.
When disaster strikes, oil, gas, and petrochemical facilities release hazardous pollutants into the air and water, compounding the crisis for nearby communities, which are often low-income and disproportionately Black, brown, and Indigenous.
When Hurricane Katrina struck, it slammed into 466 facilities that handle hazardous chemicals and petrochemicals. More than 200 onshore releases of hazardous chemicals, petroleum, or natural gas were reported. The storm caused at least 10 oil spills, releasing more than 7.4 million gallons of oil into Gulf Coast waterways—more than two-thirds the volume spilled during the Exxon Valdez disaster, one of the worst in US history. Together, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, just a month apart, shut down nearly a quarter of the country’s refining capacity.
And during Hurricane Harvey, Houston’s petrochemical plants and refineries released millions of pounds of pollutants. Flooding at the Arkema Petrochemical plant disabled the plant’s refrigeration system, triggering a massive explosion that sent black plumes and toxic fumes into the skies and forced evacuations across a community already on edge. An investigation by the Chemical Safety Board—recently dismantled by the Trump administration—determined that requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program—currently being rolled back by the EPA—could have prevented this very disaster.
A Rigged System
As extreme weather events surge, so do insurance premiums—while coverage vanishes for those living in harm’s way.
For many climate-vulnerable communities, home insurance is no longer affordable—or available. Since 2019, US home insurance rates have jumped nearly 38%. Louisiana, Texas, and Pennsylvania—all major fossil fuel corridors—rank among the top six most expensive states to insure a home. Home insurance premiums rose by 10% or more across 40 states from 2021 to 2024. Renters aren’t immune as landlords pass along skyrocketing insurance costs.
Insurance math: Communities facing hurricanes, flooding, and fires? Too risky to insure. Companies driving the disasters? Coverage and cash.
Insurers claim payouts from climate disasters are driving up costs. The truth is, insurers are investing in the very industries making those disasters worse—and raking in profits. In Louisiana, insurance companies are making $55 in profits for every $1 in underwriting losses. This profitability is not unique: NAIC data shows the property and casualty sector made an all-time high of $167 billion profits in 2024—up 91% from 2023, and 330% from 2022.
At the same time, the US insurance industry continues to bankroll fossil fuels, holding more than $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets as of 2019 (the most recent data set available); a pattern of investing that is unlikely to have substantially changed since. While refusing to insure homeowners in climate-exposed communities, many insurers are simultaneously underwriting new fossil fuel infrastructure. At least 35 insurance companies are backing methane gas (LNG) export terminals across the Gulf South—some of the very same companies, including AIG, Chubb, and Liberty Mutual, that are raising premiums or pulling out of the housing market in vulnerable regions entirely.
Insurance math: Communities facing hurricanes, flooding, and fires? Too risky to insure. Companies driving the disasters? Coverage and cash.
Rather than confronting the crisis, insurance companies are fueling it—protecting profits and abandoning people. This isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s a business model, one built on extraction and shifting costs onto the public.
The system is rigged. Those most responsible are rewarded, while those most vulnerable are left to suffer the storms alone.
Lead Now or Pay Later: States Must Decide
We all deserve somewhere safe to live—free from the dread of the next hurricane, the next explosion, or the next rollback of basic protections. But fossil fuel polluters—and the insurance companies profiting from their harm—are robbing us.
We will not accept this endless cycle of crisis. We deserve safety, especially from the governments whose duty it is to protect us. We deserve safety from storms and from toxic spills. We deserve a government that protects its people—and agencies that do their jobs: defending public health and the environment, not doing the bidding of polluters.
With the federal government abdicating its responsibility, state and local leaders must step up. They have the power and duty to act. It’s time for states, especially those in the eye of the storm, to lead where the federal government is failing. States must:
- Enforce strong petrochemical safety rules;
- Stop new fossil fuel expansion in at-risk communities;
- Hold polluters accountable for the harms they cause; and
- Refuse to let insurance companies cherry-pick who gets covered while abandoning those most in need.
When Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, it left behind a $170 billion bill. The federal government stepped in for $120 billion. But with FEMA on the chopping block, that kind of relief may never come again. If federal protections vanish, the financial and human cost of the next disaster will fall squarely on states—and the people who live in them.
The climate crisis isn’t waiting. The storms are here. Will our leaders meet the moment—or leave us to weather the disaster alone?
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
By Fast-Tracking LNG, Trump Is Putting Big Oil Above the People
President Trump made it clear in his campaign that his apparent priority was to uplift struggling Americans. This is simply and totally at odds with his promise to “drill, baby, drill.”
Jan 24, 2025
On Day One of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an assortment of executive orders to reverse steps taken by the Biden administration to mitigate climate change. He replaced those steps with orders meant to enrich a variety of corporate interests, the most prevalent being the oil and gas industry. In less than 24 hours, Trump froze crucial clean energy funds that America needs from the Inflation Reduction Act, presented the Arctic to corporate polluters on a silver platter, and prepared to turbocharge dirty energy exports.
One of the most striking executive orders is one that calls for the unfettered expansion of methane gas exports, or LNG. In this order, there is very specific, seemingly-tailored language that policy researchers confirmed is meant to expedite the approval of Delfin LNG, a floating offshore facility that the former administration refused to greenlight due to widespread changes in “project ownership, design, financing, and operations” that had been made since the project’s original approval in 2017. In short, it’s a carbon bomb project that would be responsible for 92 million metric tons of pollution annually—equivalent to 24 coal plants.
Last week during a confirmation hearing for transportation secretary, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made sure to call on nominee former Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) to approve permits for several oil and gas export terminals while accusing the Biden administration of “slow walking” the Delfin project. It seems that this executive order will only help aid this company in a quick turnaround to move forward while disregarding environmental review.
As rapid oil and gas expansion will burden Americans with higher prices and dump even more pollution into our air and water, Big Oil and their political mouthpieces will line their pockets more than ever before.
However, Delfin is just one of 14 pending LNG export facilities poised to be rapidly approved by the Trump administration. In new research from Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen, we examined announced supply agreements between exporters and LNG buyers to find that 76 million metric tons per year of LNG is under agreement to be sold from all of these facilities. The supply agreements executed so far represent an obscene amount of climate pollution—at least 510 million metric tons per year, equivalent to that of 135 coal plants.
These numbers are staggering not just for the climate impact, but for the impact on American consumers. Before the second Trump term even began, former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm warned that LNG exports could outpace global fuel demand. More LNG exports could precipitate a sharp increase in domestic gas prices leaving American consumers with higher energy bills.
While these 14 pending LNG projects have publicly disclosed buyers, there are several more pending LNG projects that could also pick up speed in the next few months. Another major executive order, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” will have the Trump administration rolling back several of the Biden administration's achievements aimed at protecting the Arctic. It would also prioritize the development of the Alaska LNG facility.
The long delayed project, which is set to be one of the largest LNG export terminals in the U.S., was approved by the Biden administration in 2022. But the massive $44 billion boondoggle, which involves building an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska, has always been too risky for the private sector. That’s why the state of Alaska has been lobbying for public financing—including via a scheme to loot clean energy loan funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. If the Trump administration successfully steers our tax dollars towards Alaska LNG, it will mean lighting the fuse of a carbon bomb 10 times dirtier than the Willow Project.
President Trump made it clear in his campaign that his apparent priority was to uplift struggling Americans. This is simply and totally at odds with his promise to “drill, baby, drill”—as rapid oil and gas expansion will burden Americans with higher prices and dump even more pollution into our air and water, Big Oil and their political mouthpieces will line their pockets more than ever before. These Day One executive orders, and the giveaways to oil and gas they offer, confirm that Trump has already abandoned the people he once again pledged to serve and put profit first instead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Biden Admin Can Still Do to Defuse the LNG Bomb Before Trump Grabs the Trigger
At the very least what the administration can and must do is tell the truth: More LNG exports are not in the public interest.
Dec 04, 2024
When the environmental history of the Biden administration is written, the Inflation Reduction Act will have pride of place—for all its compromises and flaws, it finally set serious federal money flowing toward the task of an energy transition, and defending it from Trumpian attack will be job one for green lobbyists for the next for years. (And not an impossible job in every case—the new factories built with IRA money have turned a lot of legislators, including in red states, into reluctant supporters).
But the second most useful thing the Biden administration did came less than a year ago—its January decision to pause new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This doesn’t sound to the untrained ear like such a big deal, but as readers of this newsletter know, it was: Had the industry continued to build at the pace it wanted, the climate damage from American LNG exports would soon have topped every single thing that happens in Europe. This is the biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.
You could tell what a big deal it was by the way it angered Big Oil (and big banking and big shipping)—every story about the industry’s unprecedented support for Donald Trump’s election made it clear that this was the number one casus belli. That’s because—as American demand for natural gas begins to sag in the face of the renewables buildout—their main hope was to emulate the cigarette industry and seek new markets in Asia. But a combination of on-the-ground groups in the Gulf of Mexico and climate activists across the country stuck a potato in the tailpipe. The Biden administration promised a full report before the year was out about whether or not the exports were still in the public interest.
The rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
And yesterday, somewhat surprisingly, even before that report was released, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, slowed down the process some more. They issued a finding that the next terminal up for consideration, a mammoth facility called CP 2 destined for the Louisiana coast, needed to go through a new round of environmental review because of its potential effect on local air quality. As the experts at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) explained:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order setting aside its approval for Venture Global’s massive CP2 export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The order modifies and, in part, sets aside the commission’s previous authorization order to conduct a supplemental environmental impact analysis on the project’s cumulative air quality and emissions impacts. The order states that FERC will not authorize construction until the commission completes this process.
The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan. It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that’s good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
The Biden administration should and could deny the permits outright, and here’s a petition urging them to do just that, and plans from Climate Defiance for demonstrations at the DOE next week. Most observers seem to think the denial is unlikely, especially after the FERC ruling gave them a plausible out on the most controversial of the projects. (And if they do deny them, the Trump administration might well be able to un-deny them, though at some point this all enters a valley of legal complication too thick for me to hack my way through.) Still—finish what you started. A year of investigation should have made clear that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, which means saying no.
At the very least what the Biden administration can and must do is tell the truth.
The detailed report on the economics and science of LNG exports is apparently all written and just waiting for the DOE to release, but in some ways almost as important as the report itself will be the cover letter that comes with it. The report will be dense; the language that introduces it should be clear. Though it won’t necessarily stop the new guys from doing what they want, it’s time for President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to declare forthrightly that
- There are too many of these projects in too small a space along the Gulf, and it is intolerable for the people who live there. As James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said this morning: “Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we’ve seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe. Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters.” People like Hiatt—and especially the indefatigable Roishetta Ozane—have fought as if their lives were on the line, because they are. What heroes!
- The U.S.—the leading LNG exporter in the world—is producing far more gas already than the world needs. The industry’s rhetorical defense has focused on the need to bolster European supplies after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—but Europe is now awash in gas, and has used the war to dramatically convert to renewable energy. Every long-term indication is that the continent needs more, not less. Which is why new contracts for LNG exports are designed for Asia—where they will undercut a similar conversion to sun and wind.
- In climate terms, exporting natural gas is at least as bad as exporting coal. Robert Howarth’s ground-breaking paper laying out the numerical proof was one of the keys in the battle to get the Biden pause; it’s since been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It documents the amount of heat-trapping methane that pours into the air at every point in this process. There is no possible way to square the expansion of LNG with reducing climate pollution. That won’t matter to Trump, of course, since he doesn’t believe in climate change, but it is a robust truth that needs to be stated clearly and publicly.
- In economic terms, this harms the American consumers who haven’t yet managed to install a heat pump and who are still dependent on natural gas. If shipload after shipload is sent overseas, every analysis has found, the price will go up for those Americans.
It took me far too long to figure out the danger these exports posed. I started writing about it for The New Yorker and on this newsletter in late summer of 2023, and once I understood the situation I stopped writing and started organizing, helping people like Jamie Henn and Jeremy Symons and Maura Cowley build an ad hoc climate wing of the coalition that won the pause. I’m very proud of the role Third Act played in mobilizing public opinion and I’m very proud of the role this small newsletter played too. The New York Times didn’t write a single story until the day before Biden’s decision when it was already a fait accompli; it took independent journalism and independent activism to make it happen.
One reason Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat broke my heart is because I think she would have quashed this expansion for good. But I’m hopeful that we delayed them long enough (especially given this new FERC ruling) to seriously screw up the prospects for endless expansion. Every month counts (and every month adds to financing costs); the great movement that arose to defeat these projects has taken more than a dozen months out of the calendar for their promoters, and that may well spell the difference for many projects.
The always-rational gas industry has treated its opponents with the usual respect—as one official of the Canadian producers explained recently, we are all part of a “cult-like” movement seeking “a kind of promised land where everything will operate in perfect balance.” Actually, we’re just a bunch of folks hoping for a planet that doesn’t burn right up—but to Big Oil that must look like pretty much the same thing. At any rate, if it’s a cult led by folks like Roishetta Ozane and James Hiatt, then this Methodist is happy to play his part.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The People Always Pay': Report Details How LNG Tax Breaks Harm Gulf Communities
"These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities," said one local opponent of efforts to further expand gas exports in the region.
Dec 02, 2024
How do local communities lose out when governments invest in fossil fuel facilities instead of community needs?
That's the question at the heart of a new Sierra Club report released Monday, titled "The People Always Pay: Tax Breaks Force Gulf Communities to Subsidize the LNG Industry"—which details the extent to which the export market for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, benefits from billions of dollars in tax breaks in Louisiana and Texas—revenue that could be invested in public infrastructure, schools, and other priorities.
In the past decade, after an export ban was lifted by the Obama administration in 2015, the United States has shifted from an importer to a mass exporter of LNG, which a recent Cornell University study revealed has worse impacts than coal. Critics warn that investment in LNG causes environmental harm and hampers the transition to a green economy. Export terminal sites are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, primarily impacting impoverished coastal communities in Louisiana and Texas, according to the Sierra Club's report.
"The immense scale of tax breaks granted to billion-dollar LNG projects—millions of dollars per job—is mind-blowing. These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities by polluting the air and water while depriving Gulf Coast communities of vital revenue for schools, infrastructure, healthcare, emergency services, coastal restoration and protection," said James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou and a resident of Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana, who is featured in the report.
The report relies on interviews with community members and takes a close look at the primary tax abatement programs that LNG export projects have benefited from, respectively.
Under two Louisiana tax break programs—the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) and another called Quality Jobs—nine operating, proposed, or under-construction LNG export terminals have been provided $21.6 billion. In Cameron Parish, for example, home to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG facility, the company is set to receive $4.9 billion in ITEP subsidies between 2012 and 2040, according to the report. In total, Cameron Parish residents are set to lose out on $14.9 billion in revenue from 2012-2040 due to ITEP subsidies for various LNG export terminals.
That investment in fossil fuel facilities translates to a lost $3.8 billion that could go towards schools and another $2.4 billion that could go towards health services, according to the authors of the report.
The report also details how bolstering the LNG market has adversely impacted the local economy.
For example, for Cameron Parish and nearby Calcasieu Parish, the rapid development of petrochemical facilities in the area has increased ship traffic. The Port of Cameron was once the country's largest producer of seafood, according to the report, but dredging and erosion stemming from ship traffic has made it hard for aquatic life to thrive: "While Cameron Parish had a fleet of 250 fishing vessels in 2005, nowadays, only a few dozen remain and some fishermen claim to see only 12 to 15 people working on the water every day, with others forced to supplement their income with additional jobs."
The report highlights that a grassroots organization in Louisiana found that ITEP applications from 1998 to 2017 pledged over 121,000 new jobs, but that the companies actually experienced a net loss of over 26,500 jobs.
The impact on communities is not just economic. According to the report, in Texas' Golden Triangle, a highly industrialized petrochemical corridor that includes the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, residents breathe in polluting vapors that increase potential health harms.
"Among other pollutants, refineries produce benzene, a carcinogen that can result in leukemia or severe bone marrow damage. On average, an estimated one in 5,000 people in the Golden Triangle are at an incremental lifetime cancer risk, despite the EPA’s upper limit of acceptable cancer risk being one in 10,000," the report states.
Given the sizable tax exemptions in both Louisiana and Texas pledged for projects that are not yet up and running—in addition to the environmental degradation that is guaranteed with further expansion—the Sierra Club argues that making sure they are never built is "exactly what is necessary to avert the worst of the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems: Don’t Let Manchin Do Big Oil One Last Favor
Manchin’s latest attempt at permitting reform would try and force the approval of huge new LNG export terminals along the Gulf Coast, which are both environmental justice nightmares and major carbon bombs.
Jul 26, 2024
A story. In December of 2015, everyone who worked on climate issues was in Paris for the white-knuckled final negotiations of the historic accords. While that was going on, Big Oil’s friends in Congress passed—almost without debate—an end to the longstanding ban on oil exports from the U.S. I cobbled together—with the help of the Sierra Club’s Mike Brune—what may have been the only op-ed opposing the measure, in a Paris cafe fueled by pain au chocolat. But the Democratic Senators I reached out to back home laughed—it wasn’t a big deal, they said, and anyway they were getting a production tax credit for wind energy in return. They were wrong: America in a decade has gone from not exporting oil and gas to becoming the world’s biggest producer. Bigger than Russia and the Saudis.
The moral of the story is: Big Oil is sneaky, and they will use moments when attention is diverted (say, by the advent of a truly powerful new presidential candidate) to advance their agenda. And the point of the story is: They’re trying it again.
A couple of days ago—while all of us were paying attention to Brat Summer, heterosectionality, and the general splendor of Kamala Harris’ first week (huge thanks to the members of the climate community who came together online last night to raise huge money for the campaign)—Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) announced he had cobbled together a new proposal for “permitting reform.” On the face of it, some of the new proposal makes real sense: Among other things, it would ease the process of approving the badly needed transmission lines for moving solar and wind power back and forth across the continent.
This week saw the hottest temperatures on our planet in at least the last 125,000 years. Get real.
But remember: Joe Manchin has taken more money from the fossil fuel industry than anyone else in D.C. (Which is saying something—he’s the Simone Biles of corruption). And so it’s not surprising that there’s a huge cost for this sane policy change: The bill will also try and force the approval of huge new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals along the Gulf Coast. This is not only disgusting on environmental justice grounds (watch Roishetta Ozane explain the cost to her community) but it is also the single biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.
Jeremy Symons, the veteran climate analyst who has supplied the most relevant climate analyses throughout the LNG fight, came up with these numbers last night. If enacted, he said, the LNG portion of the Manchin bill would “lock in new greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 165 coal-fired power plants or more” and “erase the climate benefits of building 50 major renewable electricity transmission lines.” It is exactly, to the letter, what Project 2025 has called for.
And yet it has some actual chance of passing. Martin Heinrichs, the Democratic senator from New Mexico, endorsed it on Wednesday—which makes a certain amount of local sense, since the state derives an outsized share of its government revenues from taxes on gas production. But Heinrichs is selling out the planet to help his state. The question is, how many of his fellow Democrats will go along? Enough to allow this legislation to move through the upper chamber?
Because remember: The ultimate goal of climate policy is not to rewire America so it can use more renewable energy. That is a good goal, and it will make money for solar and wind developers which is why many of them will support this bill. But the goal of climate policy is to prevent the planet from overheating. And if you make renewable energy easier in America at the cost of addicting developing Asian economies to exported American LNG, you have taken an enormous step backward. (You’ve also screwed over the American consumers who still depend on natural gas and will now pay more, which is one reason senators like Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have taken a dim view of this proposed law).
The big green groups have come out strongly against it. Here’s the position of the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and EarthJustice, and the Sierra Club, and Oil Change International. And here’s mine: This week saw the hottest temperatures on our planet in at least the last 125,000 years. Get real.
This week saw the explosion of joy that comes when politicians stand up to business as usual. Don’t undermine all of it with a “deal” whose main beneficiary is Big Oil. Don’t give Joe Manchin a gift on his way out the door. Don’t do what you did in 2015, when you opened the door to the oil and gas export boom. Don’t turn off the same young voters that U.S. President Joe Biden turned off by approving the Willow oil complex. Don’t get in the way of the momentum we’re trying to build as November approaches.
And on top of all that political reality, there’s reality reality as well. Physics doesn’t get a vote in Congress, but it gets the only vote that matters in the real world. Pay attention to it for once!
Keep ReadingShow Less
68 'Summer of Heat' Activists Arrested in NYC Protesting Citgroup's Fossil Fuel Financing
"Citi's business model is frying our planet," said one campaigner.
Jun 28, 2024
Scores of activists were arrested Friday during a protest outside Citigroup's New York City headquarters, where demonstrators condemned what organizers called the megabank's "racist investments devastating Black and brown communities" and fueling the worsening climate emergency.
Around 1,000 people including environmental leaders from the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana gathered at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan's Financial District, where they rallied before marching to "demand that Wall Street stop funding the fossil fuel projects causing environmental devastation in mostly Black and brown communities in the Gulf South and across the globe."
The march ended at Citigroup's headquarters on the west side of Lower Manhattan, where organizers from New York Communities for Change said 68 people were arrested. The group said a total of 259 activists have been arrested during ongoing Summer of Heat on Wall Street protests, which it organized along with Stop the Money Pipeline, Climate Defenders, and Planet Over Profit.
"On Monday, climate activists from the Gulf South and allies held a roving speak out in front of financial institutions backing the fossil fuel industry, including KKR, BlackRock, and Bank of America," New York Communities for Change said. "On Wednesday, protesters held a civil disobedience action in front of the insurance conglomerate Chubb, which insures petrochemical projects destroying the climate in the Gulf South and around the globe."
One of the protest's organizers, Roishetta Ozane—who founded the Vessel Project of Louisiana—said that "projects that kill our communities like Freeport LNG (liquefied natural gas), Cameron LNG, Corpus Christi LNG, and others would not exist without the backing of financial institutions like Citigroup."
"Money made from them is blood money," Ozane added. "Since they destroy our homes, we're coming to pay them a visit. We will break this cycle of violence and exploitation now because later is too late. We want Citigroup to stop funding fossil fuels and to stop hurting our communities and our families."
As Stop the Money Pipeline coordinator Alec Connon explained in an opinion piece published earlier this month by Common Dreams:
Since the adoption of the Paris agreement in 2015, Citi has provided $204.46 billion in financing to the company's most rapidly developing new coal, oil, and gas fields. Remarkably, Citi has provided more money to those oil and gas companies than even JPMorgan Chase―the bank that climate activists like to call the 'Doomsday Bank.'
To be clear, I'm talking here only about the financing Citi has provided for companies developing new oil and gas reserves, not merely investing in infrastructure to keep the oil pumping from existing reserves. When we take into account financing to all fossil fuel companies, Citi has provided a little shy of $400 billion to coal, oil, and gas companies since 2015.
Citigroup contends that it is "supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy through our net zero commitments and our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal," and that its "approach reflects the need to transition while also continuing to meet global energy needs."
However, Climate Defenders organizing director Marlena Fontes countered that "Citi's business model is frying our planet."
"Every credible climate scientist says that we can't afford to put one more penny into fossil fuels, but Citi is the number one funder of fossil fuel expansion in the world," Fontes added. "Until Citi stops funding fossil fuels, they can expect resistance from everyday people like us who want our children to be able to play outside without coughing on wildfire smoke or getting sick from deadly heatwaves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
300+ Groups Appeal to US at COP28: End All Support of LNG
The coalition charged that "the explosion of LNG exports from the U.S." is "an especially egregious move considering that the United States has already used up far more than its fair share."
Dec 08, 2023
With less than a week left of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, more than 300 groups from over 40 countries on Friday urged the Biden administration to end the permitting of new liquefied natural gas terminals in the United States and cut off diplomatic and financial support for LNG projects abroad.
The coalition began its letter to U.S. President Joe Biden—who is already under fire for skipping the conference—by pointing out that "the United States arrives at the COP28 climate negotiations as both the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas terminals (LNG) and the largest historic greenhouse gas emitter."
"The global expansion of LNG infrastructure is locking in decades of emissions–endangering the health of people and the planet today and for generations to come, exacerbating environmental injustice in historically marginalized communities, and entrenching fossil fuel sacrifice zones," the organizations wrote, specifically highlighting the U.S. Gulf Coast.
"Why must we let LNG poison our waters, destroy biodiversity, and drive us further to climate chaos?"
"The danger is further magnified by the pipeline of proposed projects, such as the mammoth Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2) LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana," the coalition stressed, echoing a recent letter from groups representing over 70,000 healthcare workers. "These pending projects threaten to lock in an annual 1,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions—equivalent to 378 new coal plants."
The letter also emphasizes that "although leakage across the LNG supply chain helps make the fuel substantially worse for the climate than coal, reducing methane is not a silver bullet and risks justifying further industry expansion," and calls for pairing methane reduction pledges "with commitments to completely phase out fossil fuels."
Oil Change International global policy manager Romain Ioualalen—whose group is part of the coalition—noted in a statement Friday that the latest draft COP28 agreement "shows we have never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout. But, what that transition will look like will be a fierce battle over the next few days."
"We are alarmed about some of the options in this text that seem to carve out large loopholes for the fossil fuel industry," he added. "The draft is also missing a clear recognition that developed countries will need to phase out faster and provide their fair share of finance, as well as a recognition that the decline of fossil fuel production must start immediately, not in the distant future."
Other members of the coalition include the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, Extinction Rebellion U.S., Food & Water Watch, Fridays for Future USA, Friends of the Earth International, Global Justice Now, Greenpeace USA, Indigenous Environmental Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and 350.org.
"The explosion of LNG exports from the U.S. represents an extreme grab of the limited carbon budget remaining to constrain global temperature rise to under 1.5°C, an especially egregious move considering that the United States has already used up far more than its fair share," the coalition charged, referring to the Paris agreement's bolder goal.
"Any push for a phaseout of all fossil fuels at COP28 risks falling flat if the world's leading LNG exporter shows no signs of changing course," the letter concludes. "We urge the Biden administration to publicly commit during the COP to no further regulatory, financial, or diplomatic support for LNG in the U.S. or anywhere in the world."
Coalition members echoed that call for action. Krishna Ariola of Youth for Climate Hope Philippines declared that "Southeast Asia is being shaped into an LNG import hub. Lies peddled by countries like Japan, the United States, South Korea, and countries in Europe paint gas as a transition fuel, but our people and environment have paid a steep price."
"In the Philippines, the biodiversity-rich Verde Island Passage hosts the biggest concentration of LNG projects in the country," she continued. "Why must we let LNG poison our waters, destroy biodiversity, and drive us further to climate chaos? The Philippines and Southeast Asia are more than capable of powering our region with renewables at a timeframe compatible to 1.5°C. The mad dash for gas is nothing but a blockade to a renewable energy future."
Roishetta Ozane, founder and director of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said that "communities like mine in the Gulf South are dying from the Biden administration's failure to stop fossil fuel expansion."
Noting that the Calcasieu Pass 2 facility "would produce the largest volume of LNG ever approved in the United States for export," Ozane argued that "to be on the right side of history, Biden must reject CP2 and all other gas export projects, and support a fast, fair, and full fossil fuel phaseout here at COP28."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CP2 Is the Next Massive Carbon Bomb That Must Be Defused
The planned LNG export terminal will be deadly for those living in its shadow on the Gulf Coast and for those living on this planet getting hotter with each passing year.
Dec 02, 2023
On the Louisiana coast, in Cameron Parish, plans are underway to build a massive, 550 acre, $10 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal called CP2 that would ship up to 24 million tons of gas each year, mostly to foreign markets. But CP2 is not just any other oil and gas project. It is the latest from Venture Global, a Virginia-based company that already has one other massive LNG terminal under construction in Louisiana. It is expected to be the next major greenhouse gas emission source approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and has become a flashpoint for the massive buildout of LNG exports occurring across the Gulf Coast.
If the emissions of planned US fossil fuel exports like this were counted toward totals, US emissions in 2030 would be as high as they were in 2005. FERC will likely regard the LNG exports as “in the public interest,” especially as the war in Ukraine has reduced Russian gas exports.
This boon in LNG exports is very new: The US didn’t export LNG until 2016. Despite new fossil fuel projects being incompatible with a livable future, companies like Venture Global have helped the US rapidly become the largest exporter of LNG in the world, composing about 20 percent of the global market. Incredibly, the industry wants to double its LNG exports in the next three to four years, said Robert Howarth, a leading climate scientist at Cornell University.
As CP2 seeks final approval, Howarth’s latest research demonstrates that LNG exports create more emissions than coal does. And over the course of its lifetime, CP2 will create roughly 20 times more emissions than the Willow oil-drilling project in Alaska will.
“I’m amazed,” said Howarth, who noted that CP2 is being built even as the extent of climate warming is nearing “the possibility of dangerous tipping points." For the Biden administration to permit major emission sources like CP2—“I just find it mind-boggling,” he added.
A glimpse of the future
CP2 is striking both in its size—it is set to be the largest LNG export terminal in the Gulf—and also in that its future can be glimpsed by looking next door. There, on the same stretch of Louisiana coast, sits Calcasieu Pass, Venture Global’s identical but smaller LNG export terminal. And what does that future look like? Not good.
Over the past two years, Calcasieu Pass has been plagued by malfunctioning equipment, near-constant flaring, hundreds of emissions exceedances, and thousands of permit deviations, As a result, this year, it’s faced penalties from the state and legal action from its clients—all this and the terminal still isn’t fully operational yet.
CP2 is striking both in its size—it is set to be the largest LNG export terminal in the Gulf—and also in that its future can be glimpsed by looking next door.
“Whatever we know is happening at Calcasieu Pass, we can expect to be happening at CP2,” said Shreyas Vasudevan of the environmental group Louisiana Bucket Brigade. “Except that the volume of the exceedances in emissions will be way higher, so the potential of destruction for any sort of malfunction at the plant, any sort of accident, is so much higher than for other facilities.”
This is worrying because Calcasieu Pass has been plagued by technical failures and accidents.
In July, in the face of repeated violations, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality served Venture Global with a compliance order due to its failure to disclose incidents in a timely manner. Venture Global representatives said that all the issues have now been addressed and has also asked the agency to significantly increase its allowed emissions.
But Vasudevan, environmental advocates, and nearby residents are skeptical that the technical problems are resolved. Calcasieu Pass has continued to have issues with turbines tripping, which in turn means the terminal loses power and vents gases directly into the atmosphere. “It’s clear that they’re bad faith actors,” said Vasudevan, who also said that Venture Global appears to be cutting corners in order to construct the terminals as quickly as possible.
John Allaire, a Cameron resident whose property is adjacent to Calcasieu Pass, has documented flaring almost daily—84 of its first 90 days in operation. This is a gross violation of the project’s environmental impact statement, which predicted flaring would be a rare occurrence. Earlier this year, Allaire, through the Sierra Club, was involved in a lawsuit against FERC due to similar EIS violations when the agency approved a methane gas export facility.
Bucket Brigade calculated that Calcasieu Pass was out of compliance 83 percent of its first year. When compared to similar companies, this is a startling rate of failure. Monitoring reports from other, nearby terminals “look nothing like Venture Global’s,” and “it seems to be completely a Venture Global problem,” Vasudevan said. Calcasieu Pass was the fastest greenfield LNG facility ever built. The speed of construction, and its many technical failures, suggest that Venture Global is cutting corners as it builds terminals, Vasudevan said. “Venture Global really stands out as inexperienced … and very incapable,” even compared to its competitors, he added.
Venture Global is also facing contract arbitration from multiple clients, like BP and Shell, who accuse the company of failing to fulfill its contract due to malfunctioning equipment, and using money for repairs to build CP2 instead. And whatever Calcasieu Pass has done, CP2 can be expected to do in spades. The new facility, whose construction is expected to take three years to complete, will produce roughly twice as much LNG as Calcasieu Pass does.
As the technical problems at the Calcasieu Pass terminal have continued for over a year without resolution, the prolonged issue “suggests a systemic problem at the facility,” Michael McKenna, former deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, wrote.
Construction already harming community
Currently, CP2’s existence hinges on final approval from FERC, expected any week now. FERC’s environmental impact statement is allowed to consider only the facility’s effects when it comes to exports—not the upstream or downstream ones—and said CP2’s impacts would be “less than significant.” But already, the project has driven long-time residents away from their homes.
Travis Dardar, a member of the United Houma Nation, moved to Cameron from Isle de Jean Charles about eight years ago, after he was displaced from his ancestral home by rapid land loss in the face of erosion and warming, rising seas. For years, he fished off the Cameron coast, where the shrimp was plentiful and the air clear. His home was surrounded by undeveloped cow pasture. At night, he could hear the waves hitting the beach.
Then everything changed. “At first, it was just a rumor: LNG is coming, LNG is coming,” Dardar recalled. “Then all of a sudden, hundreds of yellow trucks were everywhere, like something right out of a movie, like an invasion.”
Dardar’s land was less than a mile from Calcasieu Pass. And CP2’s property line would be about 300 feet from his front door. Every day, noise and vibrations from the construction rattled his home, and the constant flaring alarmed him. Construction of the terminals, on acres of destroyed marsh, has also driven animals from their habitats.
“When they built this plant, we started having wild dogs in the neighborhood,” Dardar said. The wild dogs killed his neighbor’s dog and nearly killed his own. “And more than once, I woke up and had an alligator by my mailbox. It was pushing the wildlife [out]—so what do you think is going to happen when CP2 is built? It’s going to push them even farther.”
After months worrying that his family was being poisoned by emissions, and at risk from an explosion from malfunctioning equipment, Dardar—like every other family on his block—accepted a buyout earlier this year and moved inland.
Now, black gunk from dredging covers the beach. The fishing catch has collapsed: Dardar estimates he now catches less than half the shrimp and fish he used to bring home. Construction has also destroyed or blocked boat launches, and passing tankers threaten to swamp his small fishing boat.
Construction is moving ahead despite grassroots opposition, with the support of industry-friendly parish officials. Venture Global, which net over $10 billion in profits last year, received $184 million in tax breaks from Cameron Parish this year. James Hiatt, himself a former oil and gas worker from nearby Lake Charles, describes Venture Global as "an existential threat” in a region already wrecked by fossil fuel’s consequences, namely powerful hurricanes and rapid land loss. He wishes the Department of Energy would step in to stop the LNG buildout, but “nobody’s keeping them in check. Nobody.” Hiatt was at an October hearing hosted by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources regarding Venture Global’s application for coastal use permits. He suggested that previous reporting, which framed Cameron residents as supportive of CP2, is misleading.
No one who spoke at the hearing was an actual fisher in Cameron, he recalled, and many who spoke in favor were themselves Venture Global employees who appeared to be reading from a script. Hiatt expressed frustration that Venture Global has received millions in tax breaks, even as it destroys the fishing industry and drives residents from their homes. “This company is god-awful,” he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Can Biden Boost His 2024 Chances? Halt LNG Exports
Given that inflation and the youth vote are two of Biden’s biggest problems right now, maybe he’ll seize the moment.
Nov 09, 2023
I’ve never seen a national environmental campaign arise so quickly.
In coastal Louisiana and Texas people have been working hard for years to oppose the ongoing build-out of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. But they didn’t get much traction nationally—something that’s changing very fast. Earlier Tuesday I joined Senators and Representatives from across the country in a press conference aimed squarely at convincing the administration to halt new licenses for LNG export; they were all friends of the president, and they were convinced that the cause is hugely significant on political grounds as well as environmental ones.
That’s because Biden is doing badly in the polls, somehow trailing his predecessor in polls of all the swing states. One place he’s really suffering is with young voters, and young voters care more than any others about the climate.
If Biden uses his authority to deny export licenses, then he will also be able to legitimately say he has also done more than any other predecessor to shut down the fossil fuel geyser.
There are, of course, two halves to the climate fight. We need to rapidly wind down dirty energy and rapidly wind up clean alternatives. On the clean energy front, Biden can legitimately claim to have done far more than anyone before him—the Inflation Reduction Act is a landmark.
As for standing up to dirty energy, Biden gets poor marks so far. For two years you could perhaps excuse it—he needed Joe Manchin’s vote to get the IRA through. But earlier this year he approved the big new Willow oil complex for Alaska, despite a valiant campaign by young people, waged mostly on Tik Tok. (One imagines Joe doesn’t spend a huge amount of time on Tik Tok…). It was a profound mistake, and my sense from talking to the administration is that if they had a do-over they’d scrap it.
The closest they’ll get to a second chance is this rapidly emerging fight against LNG exports. And in fact, it’s a much bigger deal even than Willow. Just the next project on block, the CP2 terminal slated for Cameron Parish Louisiana, would produce 20 times the greenhouse gas emissions of Willow. If they build out the next 19 projects in line, the total greenhouse gas emissions from exported U.S. LNG would be larger than the greenhouse gas footprint of… Europe. New data from Cornell’s Bob Howarth, repeatedly cited in yesterday’s press conference by all those politicians, shows that LNG is much worse than coal.
So, if Biden uses his authority to deny export licenses, then he will also be able to legitimately say he has also done more than any other predecessor to shut down the fossil fuel geyser. That counts as a big fracking deal. It would be a win
But wait there’s more. The reason Democratic presidents always hesitate to take on the fossil fuel industry is fear that they’ll be vilified for raising energy prices. In this case, though, since the LNG is set for export, blocking new export facilities will lower the domestic price of natural gas. He will be legitimately be able to say that he’s cut costs for those Americans still dependent on gas furnaces and cookstoves. It will be an actual inflation reduction act.
Don’t believe me? (I know you believe me, I’m just employing a lazy rhetorical device, because it’s been a long day). When a fire knocked out one export terminal last year, prices for Americans quickly dropped. Or here are a couple of recent statements by gas providers, explaining to their customers why prices are going up (thanks to Clark Williams-Derry of IEEFA for sending them my way). Rocky Mountain Power, for instance, explaining to the Wyoming public service commission why they need a 30% rate hike: As exports have grown, “the increased competition over domestic supply has driven regional natural gas fuel prices upward.”
Or here’s Spire, a Missouri utility: “Recent international events impacting the global supply of natural gas mean it costs more for Spire to purchase natural gas for our customers.”
Williams-Derry even made a chart to illustrate the way American’s prices for natural gas have begun to oscillate wildly as exports soared:
Translated, all this means that a Biden decision to restrict new approvals for natural gas exports would cut prices for Americans. Not “environmentalists,” which for some reason are treated as a special interest (we’re the only ones who depend on the environment, apparently). But for honest-to-God good old-fashioned American consumers.
Given that inflation and the youth vote are two of Biden’s biggest problems right now, maybe he’ll seize the moment. Let’s hope so. The Earth can’t live with that flood of methane and carbon into the atmosphere, and America can’t take another four years of Trump in the White House. Time for a little winning.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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