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
lng exports
Greenpeace Protests EU Gas Imports That Empower 'Autocrats' and 'Political Bullies'
"Energy sovereignty through renewables is no longer just an environmental necessity, it is a matter of security," one campaigner said.
Mar 27, 2025
Carrying banners reading, "Their gas, your cash" beside images of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eight members of Greenpeace Belgium took to the sea on Thursday to protest the arrival of U.S. and Russian liquefied natural gas imports into the port of Zeebrugge, as part of a larger campaign to push the European Union to abandon fossil gas by 2035.
Greenpeace activists faced off against the U.S. Marvel Swallow on board the Greenpeace vessel the Arctic Sunrise, as well as in smaller inflatable boats, according to a statement. Greenpeace Belgium further reported on social media that the group also confronted a Russian gas tanker. The campaigners argued that, in addition to worsening the climate crisis, relying on methane gas imports for its energy puts the E.U. at the mercy of foreign strongmen.
"Autocrats like Putin fund their wars with gas revenues, while political bullies like Trump use their dominance as gas suppliers to pressure European countries economically and politically," Greenpeace Belgium spokesperson Joeri Thijs said from the Arctic Sunrise. "Meanwhile, families and communities struggle with soaring energy bills and extreme weather fueled by fossil gas. This dependence leaves us all vulnerable. Energy sovereignty through renewables is no longer just an environmental necessity, it is a matter of security."
❗ We’re in action RIGHT NOW. ❗ The Arctic Sunrise is currently confronting both a Russian and an American gas tanker set to Zeebrugge with fossil gas. We are here to say: our energy bill HAS TO STOP fueling Trump’s US nor Putin’s Russia. #StopFossilGas #TheirGasYourCash
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace Belgium (@greenpeace.be) March 27, 2025 at 7:35 AM
The protest comes roughly two months after Trump declared an energy emergency in the U.S. in a bid to increase fossil fuel production. While the U.S. emerged as the world's largest LNG exporter under former President Joe Biden, the Biden administration also paused approvals of new LNG exports while it conducted a study into their impacts. The results of that study, released in December, confirmed the warnings of climate advocates that sending LNG abroad would exacerbate the climate crisis and the local pollution burden of frontline communities while raising domestic energy prices.
After taking office, however, Trump promptly reversed the Biden pause, and, earlier this month, conditionally approved exports from Venture Global's controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 terminal in coastal Louisiana. There are now signs that European leaders may cave to Trump's desire to export more U.S. fossil gas in an attempt to avoid tariffs. The U.S. is already the leading fossil gas importer to the E.U., at 45% in 2024.
When it comes to Russian gas, the E.U. has had sanctions in place against Russia since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and launched a ban on the transshipment of Russian LNG at E.U. ports on Wednesday. Yet, the bloc has had a hard time weaning itself off of Russian gas—imports rose by 18% during 2024 as Russia became the its second-leading source of methane gas imports. The E.U. also spent more on Russian oil and gas than it delivered in aid to Ukraine.
"Europe's overreliance on fossil gas leads to rising energy bills, sickness, deaths, destruction of nature, and climate chaos."
"The E.U.'s dependence on fossil fuel imports, with all the problems that brings, can't be broken without a wholesale move to renewable energy and a clear commitment to phase out all fossil fuels, including fossil gas," Thomas Gelin, energy and climate campaigner at Greenpeace E.U., said in a statement. "The first step must be an immediate ban on all new fossil fuel projects in the E.U.; it's senseless to prepare for more fossil fuels than we need. No new pipelines, no new gas terminals, no half-measures: a ban on all new fossil fuel projects, pure and simple."
The E.U. has succeeded in curbing its gas demand by 20% between 2021 and 2024, and overall imports fell by 19% last year. Greenpeace is calling on the bloc to build on that success with a ban on all new fossil fuel projects, a ban on investments in fossil fuels, and a phaseout of fossil gas by 2035. An open letter to member countries making these demands has been signed by over 81,000 people.
"Europe's overreliance on fossil gas leads to rising energy bills, sickness, deaths, destruction of nature, and climate chaos," the letter reads. "Fossil gas is a dirty, deadly fossil fuel like oil and coal. This is why the European Union and its member states must act now and #StopFossilGas and all other fossil fuel projects before it's too late."
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
Nearly 300 Green Groups Urge Biden to Block LNG Expansion Ahead of Trump
"As we prepare to resist Donald Trump and his promises to unleash U.S. LNG on the world, you must use the remaining days of your presidency to lock in as much climate progress as possible," the groups wrote.
Nov 21, 2024
As the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan draws to a close and the second presidency of Donald Trump approaches, nearly 300 organizations from almost 40 countries are calling on the Biden administration to do everything in its power to stop the buildout of liquefied natural gas infrastructure.
The 282 groups, which included the Sunrise Movement, Oil Change International, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Center for Biological Diversity, and several branches of 350.org and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday outlining several steps he and his administration could take to use "the time it has left" to scupper the LNG expansion ahead of Trump's second term.
"As we prepare to resist Donald Trump and his promises to unleash U.S. LNG on the world, you must use the remaining days of your presidency to lock in as much climate progress as possible," they wrote.
"Now is the time to safeguard communities and the climate against the threat of growing LNG exports, which the administration can do by putting a stop any more risky buildouts from Big Oil."
In particular, the letter writers outlined four main actions Biden could take:
- Finalize an ongoing review of the studies that the Department of Energy (DOE) will use to determine whether or not LNG exports are in the public interest, using the latest information on the climate risks of LNG as well as the harms it poses to frontline communities and U.S. consumers;
- Order the DOE to reject all six permits for new LNG facilities awaiting approval, including Venture Global's "carbon bomb" Calcasieu Pass 2, which is vocally opposed by local Louisiana communities;
- Reach an agreement with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries to end export credit agencies' backing of fossil fuels abroad; and
- Cancel all U.S. government funding of foreign LNG infrastructure and revoke the more than $5 billion earmarked by the from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for an LNG project in Mozambique.
"The Biden administration has mere weeks to protect the planet from the threat of more LNG infrastructure, and the growing LNG boom under his watch is something we cannot afford," Raena Garcia, senior energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S., said in a statement. "Now is the time to safeguard communities and the climate against the threat of growing LNG exports, which the administration can do by putting a stop any more risky buildouts from Big Oil."
Under Biden, the U.S. became the world's leading exporter of LNG, even as new research shows that the fuel could be as bad as coal for the climate, or even worse.
"The explosion of LNG exports from the U.S. represents an extreme grab of the limited carbon budget remaining to constrain global temperature rise," the letter writers, who come from more than 37 countries, argued. "This is especially egregious considering that the United States has already consumed far more than its fair share of the remaining carbon budget."
Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the expansion in U.S. LNG exports was partly sold as a way for it to help its allies in Europe gain energy independence from Russia and survive an immediate wartime shortage of Russian gas. However, most of the new projects pushed by the industry in both the U.S. and Europe would not begin operating until 2026 and therefore were more about locking in reliance on gas than meeting an immediate need.
"The energy crisis in Europe is over," said Constantin Zerger, head of energy and climate protection at Deutsche Umwelthilfe. "There is no need for additional gas supplies from the United States for Europe. Instead of expanding already harmful fossil infrastructure, we need to turn the tide and accelerate the buildout of renewable energy. We must prioritize protecting climate targets and human rights over a second lifetime for a dirty industry."
The letter comes as Trump, whom the writers called "an impending nightmare for people and the planet," has promised to expand fossil fuel production and infrastructure and lift environmental regulations. His pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, has pledged to work toward "U.S. energy dominance" and his choice to lead the DOE, Chris Wright, is a fracking CEO who claims that "there is no climate crisis."
The environmental groups urged Biden to do "damage control."
"The next four years will test the limits of global resistance against fossil fuels," they concluded. "The next two months should be spent doing all that we can to protect communities in the U.S., the Global South, and throughout the world. We implore you to not act as though your climate presidency ended on November 5."
Keep ReadingShow Less
At COP29, Democrat Senators Vow to 'Rise Up' for Climate During 'Dark Days' of Trump 2.0
"Just like climate change won't be solved by any one president, climate action won't be stopped by any one president," Sen. Ed Markey said at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Azerbaijan.
Nov 16, 2024
A pair of Democratic U.S. senators pledged Saturday at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan to keep fighting for climate action during Republican President-elect Donald Trump's second term, while urging President Joe Biden to act decisively against liquefied natural gas exports before the end of his presidency.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ed Markey of Massachusetts spoke at a press conference Saturday following a Friday joint panel discussion at COP29, where they both sounded the alarm over the dangers of Trump 2.0 and offered hope for climate action.
"With Trump and the Republicans taking their turn at the political reins, oil and gas companies will soon have their pick of lackeys to enable their destructive, polluting LNG wish list," said Markey, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Climate, Clean Air, and Nuclear Safety.
"Supercharged natural gas exports will be a new Trump energy tax on American households, costing households billions by sending fossil fuels abroad to the highest bidder," the senator continued. "Big Oil has a business plan—and is only here at COP29 to make their business deals, at the expense of working families in the U.S. and frontline communities around the globe."
"But our climate-focused, people-powered, renewable plan is better, and we're joining forces worldwide to fight for it and reject Big Oil's attempt to put private profits over the public interest—no matter who's president and no matter which cronies are at the controls," Markey added.
As the senator noted during a Friday press call, "Just like climate change won't be solved by any one president, climate action won't be stopped by any one president."
Earlier this week, Markey and Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) introduced the Targeting Environmental and Climate Recklessness Act (TECRA), legislation to "restrict access to the U.S. financial system for those individuals and companies most responsible for exacerbating climate change and deforestation."
Whitehouse said in a statement that "dark days are ahead in Washington as Donald Trump, Republicans, and their fossil fuel handlers abdicate America's leadership on climate just as the scientific and economic warnings of climate chaos grow more clear and grim."
"The world must be clear-eyed about the threat Trump's Republican Party poses to climate safety," the senator added. "At COP, I hope to reassure our foreign counterparts that Democrats will pursue climate progress at every level of government while fighting tooth and nail to expose the Big Oil-fueled corruption descending on D.C."
Markey stressed that "climate change and Donald Trump are both existential threats to our health and to our livable future—but we're not giving up on either front."
"Even if Donald Trump is ready to enact his day-one doomsday agenda and pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement yet again, we will rise up in support of ambitious climate action and climate finance targets—targets that will show that COP stands for Climate Outlasts Presidents," Markey argued.
"We must work together, both at home and in solidarity with lawmakers around the world, in order to delay and derail Trump and the fossil fuel industry's dirty agenda," he added.
The senators and green groups said one way to get a head start on fighting that agenda is for Biden to halt LNG export expansion. Although climate campaigners praised Biden's January pause on approvals for all LNG exports to non-Fair Trade Agreement countries, a Trump-appointed federal judge lifted the pause in July. In September, the Department of Energy granted LNG export approval to the company New Fortress Energy.
Under Biden's watch, the United States became the world's leading LNG exporter.
"While Trump stacks his cabinet with a carnival of corporate cronies, President Biden has just weeks to halt some of the biggest carbon bombs on Earth," Center for Biological Diversity senior climate campaigner Ben Goloff said at Saturday's press conference."
"From the Gulf Coast to Europe and Asia, U.S. LNG expansion is neither needed nor wanted. The Biden administration should urgently complete its review of LNG exports' many harms," Goloff added. "It should reject authorizations for monster polluter [Calcasieu Pass 2] LNG export terminal and other pending projects that fail to meet the public interest test required by law, science, and justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Will We Fight This Climate Nightmare?
Where do we go from here? The road won’t be easy, but just know that you won't be alone.
Nov 08, 2024
A post from the writer Rebecca Solnit has been going around a number of the group chats I’m in. She writes, “They want you to feel powerless and to surrender and to let them trample everything and you are not going to let them. You are not giving up, and neither am I.”
I’ll admit, I felt a lot like giving up the last 48 hours. Part of me expected the results of Tuesday’s election, but they still hit like a body blow. Watching the incredible surge of volunteers over the past few days, including thousands of climate activists who headed out to battleground states to help get out the vote, had left me feeling hopeful heading into the election.
But it wasn’t to be. Running on a message of hate and division, and backed by fossil fuel billionaires and the world’s richest man, Donald Trump won the election in a relative landslide, improving on both his 2016 and 2020 numbers, while making strong inroads with young people, Latinos, and other members of what we’d come to understand as the traditional Democratic base.
So where do we go from here? What’s next for the climate fight?
Lessons From the Election
First, I think it’s worth trying to draw some lessons from the election. The dust is still settling, and there was so much at play in this chaotic process that it’s impossible to point the finger and say that’s the reason that Trump won and Vice President Kamala Harris lost, but I think there are still a few observations we can make about how the race played out.
The biggest one is about the economy. For the past four years, Americans have been struggling with the high cost of everything from groceries to gas prices. Common Dreams readers know the role that corporations played in driving up costs, from Big Oil taking advantage of the war in Ukraine to constrict supply and jack up the price at the pump, to chain grocers like Kroger intentionally keeping prices high to pad their CEO’s pockets. But that message never really got to the majority of Americans. Democrats were skittish about calling out corporate power, and some late in the game messages about “taking on price gouging” rang hollow as a result.
If they want to win elections going forward, Democrats are going to have to do a much better job of calling out corporate power, including Big Oil, and showing the spine necessary to take them on.
I saw this play out first hand. When gas prices first went up in 2021, we sprang into action and launched the Stop The Oil Profiteering campaign to try and push the White House and Democrats to pass a windfall profits tax. We made some headway with progressive members, and the House eventually passed an anti-price gouging bill, but Democratic leadership never really embraced the message. They were more interested in “claiming credit” for when gas prices went down a bit, not realizing that in doing so, they ended up owning the issue. Instead of clearly saying, “These corporations caused the problem,” they ended up with a muddled message about Russian President Vladimir Putin, supply and demand, and global markets.
In that context, it was easy for Trump to just repeat, “Biden is to blame,” on everything from gas to groceries to the lack of affordable housing. He didn’t need a plan to solve the problem, he just needed to show that he was as angry as you were, and that he knew who to fight. If they want to win elections going forward, Democrats are going to have to do a much better job of calling out corporate power, including Big Oil, and showing the spine necessary to take them on.
Second, I think Harris’ run to the center didn’t help her win over the voters she needed for the election. You can see this on any host of policy issues (with her failure to speak more clearly about the genocide in Gaza at the top of the list), but let’s focus on climate and energy. The Harris campaign was clearly nervous that any talk about energy issues would backfire by reminding some Pennsylvania voters that she’d opposed fracking in the past. But this supposed fracking backlash was always more of a media fabrication: Polling from Climate Power showed that when asked about issues that made them less likely to support Vice President Harris, only 3% of likely voters listed fracking—it just wasn’t on people’s radar screens.
Our job is to fight back, while doing everything we can to keep building a clean energy economy that works for all.
On the flip side, huge majorities of both Harris’ base and independent voters support the buildout of more clean energy, something Trump clearly opposes and will work to undermine. There are clean energy jobs at stake in every battleground state and across the country, but the Harris campaign never effectively weaponized the issue and made Trump’s crazy theories about wind turbines and solar panels a liability. Yes, a lot of environmental groups tried to drive this message, but we needed it from the top down and Harris never fully delivered.
The same dynamic played out with Hurricane Helene and Milton. In the days after Helene hit, I remember going through VP Harris’ various social media feeds and being shocked to see that there was hardly any mention of climate change. When I reached out to folks on the campaign, they said that she was focused on pushing back on disinformation about FEMA and supporting recovery efforts, which is important and admirable, but wasn’t really an answer. Again, I imagine that the campaign felt like calling the storms “climate disasters” was somehow too edgy and might turn off some voters. What that left them with was a professorial response—“this problem is very serious”—rather than a powerful, emotional, resonant message. In that vacuum, fake news about $750 checks and Biden intentionally withholding aid landed. They weren’t “true,” but they felt intense and shocking in a way that people were hungry for.
Did any of this prove decisive in the election? Maybe not. Again, there were so many factors at play and the Harris campaign did a lot of things right. But going forward, helping people understand who is really to blame for their economic hardships, and learning how to harness climate disasters and other disruptive events, are going to be crucial for pushing back on Trump and Big Oil’s agenda.
The Fight Ahead
Which brings us to the fight ahead. We don’t know exactly what Trump is going to do on climate and fossil fuels, but if Project 2025 and his campaign rhetoric is any indication, it’s going to be a nightmare. We can expect the Trump administration to not only take a bulldozer to environmental laws and regulations, but do everything they can to weaponize other parts of the government, like the Interior and Department of Energy, to promote fossil fuel development.
Our job is to fight back, while doing everything we can to keep building a clean energy economy that works for all.
First and foremost, that means standing in solidarity with our frontline allies. We know that Black, brown, and Indigenous people are at the forefront of fossil fuel expansion and bear the brunt of pollution and toxic chemicals. We need to push donors to invest more with grassroots groups in these communities and do what we can as activists to support their fights. As our frontline, and especially our Indigenous allies will remind us, they’ve been fighting under an oppressive system of white supremacy all their lives. While the struggle may be more intense over the coming years, it isn’t new, and we’ve got tools and tactics to fight back.
We can ensure that Trump faces massive resistance if he attempts to roll back clean energy programs that are creating jobs and saving consumers money, especially in Republican districts and states that have received the majority of benefits from the IRA.
Second, we need to do everything we can to slow new fossil fuel development. Try as he might, Trump can’t build new fossil fuel projects unilaterally. Remember his campaign promise to build the Keystone XL pipeline? It never happened. We need to do everything we can to stop new projects in their tracks, from going after project financing, to filing lawsuits, to organizing grassroots campaigns that can stop projects on the ground. And remember, this isn’t just a fight for progressives or liberals: Many of these projects go through deeply conservative areas, and there are lots of folks in Trump’s base who may change their opinion on the merits of “drill, baby, drill” when it shows up in their backyard. As Rebecca Solnit reminds us, “the fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving.” We may not be able to stop every handout to the fossil fuel industry, but saving even one community from a destructive project is worth the fight. Every pipeline, every fossil fuel export terminal, and every fracking well we can stop matters.
Third, we need our cities, states, and federal allies to play offense. We don’t need to give the fossil fuel industry carte blanche to pursue their planet wrecking agenda. Now is the time to double down on building public support for the lawsuits and investigations that could ultimately hold Big Oil accountable for climate deception. Over 30 cities, states, municipalities, and tribal governments are already suing Big Oil, and I think we’ll see dozens more in the years to come. We can also push more states to follow Vermont’s lead and pass Climate Superfund bills that will force oil and gas companies to pay for climate damages—the biggest one currently on deck is in New York, where pressure is ratcheting up on Gov. Kathy Hochul to act. As fossil fuel CEOs tighten their grip on D.C., we can still get after them from every other corner of the country.
Fourth, let’s make the clean energy buildout unstoppable. The Biden Administration should be doing everything it can to get any remaining funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) out the door before they leave office. In the meantime, we need to start preparing to defend the clean energy programs and projects in our cities, states, and communities. We can ensure that Trump faces massive resistance if he attempts to roll back clean energy programs that are creating jobs and saving consumers money, especially in Republican districts and states that have received the majority of benefits from the IRA. But defense won’t be enough: We also need to create a movement of people all across the country who continue to accelerate the deployment of clean energy. Progress will be decentralized, but it doesn’t need to be derailed—especially if we all get to work.
Fifth, we need to tell a better story about climate and clean energy that connects with everyday people’s lives. There are so many good examples across the movement of groups making these connections: Environmental justice groups are connecting pollution directly to individual health; local clean energy groups are showing people how going solar will reduce electricity bills; mutual aid networks are effectively responding to extreme weather events and helping people connect the dots to climate and fossil fuels. It’s time to double down on all that work and more, while making sure that these narratives are echoed by our political leaders. As I said above, Democrats haven’t done a good job blaming Big Oil for things like inflation and high gas prices—that needs to change if they want to win elections in the future.
Finally, we need the Biden administration to do everything it can on climate before Trump takes office. Get all the money from the IRA out the door. Conclude the Department of Energy’s studies on the impacts of Liquified Natural Gas exports and show they aren’t in the public’s interest. Reject major new export facilities like the CP2 carbon megabomb in Louisiana. Ban drilling on public lands and waters. Set aside new protected areas. Yes, Trump will be able to claw back some of these actions, but in some cases, doing so will require years of legal challenges. I’d rather we keep them busy trying to undo progress than actively doing damage.
It is completely understandable to feel demoralized right now. Take time to let this sink in. Take time to grieve. Support your friends and family to do the same. But remember, as Joan Baez said, “Action is the antidote to despair.” I’ve already felt the small flame of hope inside of me begin to burn brighter as I’ve gotten to plot with friends and colleagues about the fight ahead. The road won’t be easy, but it’s one we’ll walk together. Onwards.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Urge Biden to 'Secure His Climate Legacy' by Acting on LNG Before Trump Takes Office
"The clock is ticking—for the Biden administration and our planet," one campaigner asserted.
Nov 07, 2024
With just 75 days left before climate-denying Republican President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House to pursue his "Drill, Baby, Drill" energy agenda, clean energy advocates in the United States on Wednesday urged President Joe Biden to take "bold action" to move toward a fossil fuel phaseout and a sustainable future for the world's people and the planet they all share.
"Although millions of Americans voted to reject Trump's dangerous agenda, we face another four years of a Trump presidency," said Oil Change International executive director Elizabeth Bast. "Trump has promised to double down on oil and gas production, accelerating climate catastrophe while continuing to enable violence against vulnerable communities—from environmental defenders to Palestinians facing genocide. His policies will compound environmental racism and human rights abuses, with Black, Brown, Indigenous, and frontline communities in the U.S. and around the world bearing the heaviest burden."
"Movements for change have won important victories under the toughest conditions," Bast added. "It would take more than a Trump presidency to change that. Every pipeline, every fossil fuel export terminal, and every fracking well we can stop matters."
To that end, Oil Change International U.S. program manager Collin Rees asserted that "in his final months in office, President Biden has the opportunity to secure his climate legacy by taking bold action to phase out fossil fuels and protect our climate and communities."
"We are calling on Biden to immediately end fossil fuel expansion, make permanent his January pause on new [liquefied natural gas] exports, shut down the disastrous Dakota Access Pipeline, and fulfill the U.S.' commitment to stop financing international fossil fuel projects," he continued.
Looking forward to this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29)—which is set to begin next week in Baku, the capital of petrostate Azerbaijan—Rees said that "Biden must seize his final moment at COP29 in Azerbaijan this November to cement real climate action before Trump takes office."
"After pledging to move away from fossil fuels at COP28, Biden needs to deliver by championing a bold new $1 trillion annual climate finance package and putting forth a plan for a fast, fair, forever, funded, fossil fuel phaseout," he argued. "This funding will transform last year's fossil fuel promises into genuine support for adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage—but only if Biden acts now."
"The clock is ticking—for the Biden administration and our planet," Rees stressed. "What Biden does now will determine whether he'll be remembered as the leader who did his utmost to limit the Trump administration's damage and keep the world from hurtling towards climate chaos."
Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media echoed the demand, calling on Biden to "make a mountain of progress for Trump to try to undo."
Bloomberg reported Thursday that the Biden administration is "racing" to complete a study examining the climate, economic, and national security implications of increased LNG exports. While Trump has vowed to end Biden's LNG export pause on his first day in office, any adverse findings in the study could be used to launch legal challenges to the new administration's project approvals.
Despite campaign promises to take bold 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 Trump did in 2017 and 2018.
During Biden's tenure, the United States became the
world's leading LNG exporter. The president has 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.
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 despite warnings from climate scientists that continued fossil fuel extraction has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating and meeting the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
On a positive note, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by Biden contains unprecedented investments in the clean energy sector, including solar, wind, and battery storage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No, Europe Does’t Need US LNG
Rather than channeling support into fossil giants like LNG export plants, we need a transatlantic strategy to get off fossil fuels.
Sep 26, 2024
Europe is the biggest market for U.S. fracked gas exports. This fracked gas is liquefied—turned into LNG—and then shipped to the E.U.’s shores. Once regasified it runs in pipelines to fuel industry processes or heat homes or food. While it was enthusiastically titled “Freedom Gas” in 2019, when the E.U.-U.S. LNG deal was forged, more and more Europeans realize today that this gas comes with a very bitter aftertaste, concerning both our planet’s climate and the environment as well as human rights and the health of impacted communities.
This spring, I had the opportunity to meet Corpus Christi and Southern Louisiana inhabitants and learn firsthand about the devastating impact that the LNG industry, on top of all other polluting industries impacting the community, has on people and their health, water, air, and livelihoods.
Industry operations in petrochemical and LNG export locations in the U.S. Gulf Coast are linked with heart, lung, and kidney diseases; significantly lower life expectancy; water and air pollution; loss of biodiversity; and structural human rights violations as well as structural environmental racism. It becomes more and more clear to any remotely responsible energy user that all this is what Europeans are importing when they import LNG, molecule by molecule, vessel by vessel.
More and more LNG export facilities—and E.U. import facilities for that matter—will become stranded assets, and the money invested in them, which should have been invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency, will be lost.
The U.S. Gulf Coast is not only hit by reckless fossil fuel industry activities, but also regularly hit by major hurricanes—and finds itself in the middle of an active hurricane season right now. Increasingly damaging hurricanes are only one of many consequences of the climate crisis. We all experience one heat record after another, floods, droughts, and the world has probably surpassed the 1.5°C threshold already. LNG is fossil methane and has a global warming potential over 100 times higher than that of carbon dioxide in the next crucial decade. LNG leaks methane all along the supply chain.
This should be shocking for any European—and American—to hear, given in the past two years, Europe swallowed over 60% of all LNG that the U.S. exported. After Europe has been scrambling to get off Russian gas, U.S. LNG made up for over 46% of the gas in the E.U. in 2023, and almost all of it is fracked—making the LNG’s climate impact even worse.
Now there are gigantic further LNG plans in the making: Massive LNG export capacity increases are planned in the Gulf Coast. But even notwithstanding the fact that people and the planet can’t afford even more LNG, this buildout does not make sense: The E.U.’s gas demand has already decreased by 20%, and will decrease further if we take our climate commitments seriously. Austria’s fossil gas demand has decreased by 25% since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, we are still heavily dependent on Russian gas. In March of 2024, 93% of our gas imports came from Russia—and this too is a shocking truth. So while we may need LNG from other countries in the short-term in order to diversify our gas imports, we would be putting ourselves between a rock and a hard place if we were to replace Russian gas with fracked LNG from the U.S. and Canada. There is no lesser of two evils. This is exactly why it is so important that we phase out fossil gas and transition to sustainable alternatives in those industries that will still depend on gas in the future.
But there is no doubt about our long-term trajectory. We agreed to achieve climate neutrality by 2040. This will be the end date for any use of fossil gas in Austria. The European Union aims for climate neutrality 10 years later than we do. In any case, the bottom line is that we will be phasing out the use of fossil gas in the next 25 years in Europe—which should not be ignored by our transatlantic partners. If we all take our international commitments seriously—commitments that were strengthened at the last climate conference in Dubai—we must not invest in the long-term expansion of ever more LNG capacity. There is no alternative to a fossil fuel phaseout.
In addition to that, more than 40% of the E.U.’s LNG import capacity has been idle last year and the bloc’s LNG demand is expected to peak very soon—possibly already this winter. More and more LNG export facilities—and E.U. import facilities for that matter—will become stranded assets, and the money invested in them, which should have been invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency, will be lost.
Rather than channeling support into fossil giants like LNG export plants—fuming, polluting, and venting sometimes more than 90 hours straight—we need a transatlantic strategy to get off fossil fuels, as fast and fairly as possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Massive Climate Coalition Demands Biden Kill LNG Export Licenses
"We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction," one frontline advocate said.
Sep 09, 2024
A coalition of more than 250 climate, environmental, and frontline community organizations on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to reject all requests for approval to export liquefied natural gas to non-fair trade agreement countries.
The demand came in the form of a letter following a recent ruling by Trump-appointed District Judge James D. Cain Jr. to lift a pause that Biden's Department of Energy had placed on new LNG export approvals while it updates the criteria it uses to determine whether these exports are in the public interest. It also comes a week after the DOE signed off on the export of LNG from an offshore New Fortress Energy plant near Altamira, Mexico.
"After the hottest summer on record, on track to be the hottest year, it's clear that expanding climate-heating gas exports is not in the public interest," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "There's no reason on Earth to approve more LNG exports that lock in decades of damage to the climate, human communities, and imperiled species like Rice's whales. The Department of Energy must reject every single one."
"With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety."
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the many signatories of Monday's letter, backed by dozens of large national groups as well as scores of smaller, more local organizations. Other groups include Earthworks, Food and Water Watch, Oil Change International, the Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, several branches of 350.org and Extinction Rebellion, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the Vessel Project of Louisiana.
In the letter, the groups applauded the administration for instituting the pause on approvals in the first place and for acknowledging that the data it used to determine whether exports were in the public interest was "outdated and insufficient."
Since the court ruling leaves the department without a deadline for updating its data, the groups urged the DOE "to continue seeking the best available information on the impact of LNG exports on the public, the environment, and economy."
"When the department completes its analyses, the weight of evidence will make it clear that new LNG exports are not in the public interest and that all pending applications to export LNG must be rejected," the groups wrote.
With the world "on the verge" of exceeding the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement, the coalition warned against new infrastructure and export policies that will only exacerbate the global emissions crisis at a critical moment in history.
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next year, and then steeply decline, for our planet to have the best chance of avoiding this fate," the letter reads. "The only way world leaders can avoid this moral and political failure is to work together to end fossil fuel production."
This goal has been hampered by the record rise in U.S. gas production facilitated by the fracking boom. Whereas global gas production had been predicted to be on the wane, it is now expanding instead. At the same time, new research has shown that, due to methane leaks, gas is not a "bridge fuel" to cleaner energy but in fact just as detrimental to the climate as coal.
Another major concern raised by LNG opponents is the local pollution generated by export facilities. Many of these new facilities are located in, under construction in, or slated for the Gulf South, which is already overburdened by toxic emissions from oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
"As a mom living in a community surrounded by industry, I feel the weight of every decision made about our environment," Vessel Project founder and director Roishetta Ozane said in a statement. "With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety. The Department of Energy has the power to reject these LNG export permits, and it's crucial they do so. We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction."
The letter suggests the broad environmental movement, both at the local level and nationally, is united behind the demand to halt the LNG buildout as the groups applauded Biden's efforts to curb exports thus far but also asked him to go further.
"We initially urged you to pause approvals of LNG exports," they wrote to Biden and Granholm, "we fiercely celebrated and defended your decision to do so in January, and now we write to let you know we continue to stand behind you as we insist that you take the next step of stopping new LNG exports."
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