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
jamie henn
Cornell Study Shows LNG Worse for Climate Than Coal
"LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy," said one expert. "It's a highway to climate hell."
Oct 03, 2024
On the heels of Hurricane Helene devastating the U.S. Southeast and sparking fresh calls for action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, a long-awaited study revealed Thursday that the planet-heating pollution from liquefied natural gas is worse than that of coal.
"Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter," wrote Cornell University scientist Robert Howarth, who analyzed the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG produced in and exported from the U.S.
Howarth found that "the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal" in terms of its 20-year global warming potential, and "even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission... which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal."
Advocates of bold climate action welcomed the formal publication of what Third Act founder Bill McKibbencalled a "crucial paper."
"LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!"
The study, published online by the journal Energy Science & Engineering, follows U.S. President Joe Biden pausing approvals for all LNG exports to non-fair trade agreement countries and comes a month out from the presidential election, in which Democratic Vice President Kalama Harris is facing Big Oil-backed Republican former President Donald Trump.
"This is a HUGE deal for the Biden administration's ongoing review of LNG exports," said Jamie Henn, executive director of Fossil Free Media and a founder of 350.org, sharing Howarth's findings on social media. Climate campaigners are calling on the Biden-Harris administration to make the January pause permanent.
"This should be the final nail in the coffin for the false narrative that LNG was somehow a climate solution," Henn added in a statement. "This now peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that LNG is worse for the climate than coal, let alone clean energy alternatives. Approving more LNG exports is clearly incompatible with the public interest."
As Henn and others acknowledged, Howarth's research has been targeted by journalists and the fossil fuel industry.
"This paper has been widely discussed, revised, and is now peer-reviewed and published," said Jason Rylander, legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy. It's a highway to climate hell."
Alex Walker, climate finance program manager at the Canadian group Environmental Defense, also responded to the research by stressing that, contrary to claims by the fossil fuel industry and its political allies, "LNG is not a bridge fuel."
Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said on social media that "there is no environmental case for increased U.S. LNG exports."
Howarth is on the board of directors of the Food & Water Watch, which similarly pointed to the paper as further proof that "LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!"
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media, declared Thursday that "the science is clear."
"There's no place for LNG in a clean energy future," DiPaola said. "It's time to double down on truly clean alternatives like wind, solar, and energy efficiency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harris Urged to 'Absolutely Go After Trump for Being in the Pocket of Big Oil'
"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Sep 10, 2024
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Leaders Like This Idea: Jamie Raskin for Attorney General
"A growing number of cities and states are investigating Big Oil for misleading the public about climate change," said the Sunrise Movement, emphasizing the need for a DOJ leader "who's ready to do the same."
Aug 30, 2024
Just over two months away from the U.S. presidential election, one progressive organizer on Friday suggested Congressman Jamie Raskin for attorney general if Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris wins—and some climate leaders enthusiastically welcomed the proposal.
"I know, I know, it's bad luck to talk about personnel decisions before an election," Aaron Regunberg wrote for The New Republic, acknowledging the tight contest between Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump. "And yet, in the wake of last week's Democratic National Convention, discussions about appointments in a potential Harris-Walz administration are already picking up steam, with one position in particular getting attention: attorney general."
"DOJ will be one of the most powerful tools we have to take on Big Oil in a Harris administration, so it's not too early to start thinking about who we'd want to lead the department."
Regunberg cited recent Politico reporting that the Democratic Party's "political-legal establishment is already buzzing about who might replace" President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. He described Garland's leadership of the U.S. Department of Justice as "disastrous," arguing that "he has acted more like a judge than an advocate and prosecutor," and "consistently prioritized his own personal desire to look apolitical over his duty to, as the DOJ seal requires, 'prosecute on behalf of justice.'"
"The most obvious example is the DOJ's catastrophic handling of Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election," he declared.
By contrast, Raskin (D-Md.) is "a brilliant legal scholar" who managed Trump's historic second impeachment, after the Republican's efforts to reverse his loss culminated in him inciting his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Regunberg noted. He was also "a prominent leader" on the select committee that investigated the attack.
Raskin is now the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Regunberg argued that although he wasn't mentioned in Politico's reporting—which had some "promising names" alongside options that "fail to inspire much confidence"—the former law professor "would be an inspired and inspiring choice to lead the DOJ."
As Regunberg—an advocate of holding fossil fuel giants criminally responsible for extreme weather-related deaths—wrote:
Who better to redeem Garland's failure to hold Trump accountable for January 6 than the lead impeachment manager who prosecuted Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors? Who better to ensure the DOJ stops bowing to fossil fuel industry pressure than the head of the House Oversight Committee's push to hold Big Oil accountable? And who better to tackle the challenge of out-of-control extremist judges and Supreme Court justices than Congress' leading constitutional expert?
Of course, Raskin doesn't cut a moderate profile like Garland does, and all appointment decisions will be shaped by whether Democrats retain control of the Senate—though it's worth noting that he has a record of collaborating effectively with Republicans, and he managed to win the votes of seven Republican senators during Trump's second impeachment.
While, as Regunberg noted, "it's also not clear that Raskin would even want the job," climate advocates still embraced the idea.
"DOJ will be one of the most powerful tools we have to take on Big Oil in a Harris administration, so it's not too early to start thinking about who we'd want to lead the department," said Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn, a co-founder of the international climate group 350.org.
It's quite clear where Raskin stands on the oil and gas industry's decadeslong efforts to delay action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. With Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Raskin led a three-year investigation into the sector's "denial, disinformation, and doublespeak," resulting in their joint call for Garland to launch a criminal probe of oil and gas giants.
Sharing Regunberg's piece on social media Friday, the youth-led Sunrise Movement highlighted that "a growing number of cities and states are investigating Big Oil for misleading the public about climate change."
"Harris has campaigned on her own record of doing so," the group continued, referencing her time as California's chief lawyer. "We need an attorney general—like Jamie Raskin—who's ready to do the same."
Sunrise hasn't endorsed Harris, but it's part of the Green New Deal Network, which has, like various other green groups. The movement announced Tuesday that it would work to reach 1.5 million young voters in key swing states to defeat Trump.
Trump, notably, told Big Oil executives in April that he would gut the Biden administration's climate regulations if elected, as long as they put $1 billion toward his campaign—provoking probes from Raskin as well as Whitehouse and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Since then, fossil fuel money has poured in for Trump—and as climate advocates have rallied around Harris, her campaign has warned that "oil barons are salivating" over the Republican's potential return to the White House next January.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular