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
u.s. department of energy
'A Call to Conscience': Damning Report Shows Every Major US LNG Project Fails Climate Test
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate."
Jul 09, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump ramps up fossil fuel production under his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, a report published Wednesday highlights the climate and financial harms posed by new liquefied natural gas export projects—all of which fail a "climate test" that the Department of Energy issued during the Biden administration.
The report—published by Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International—examines five major U.S. LNG projects: Venture Global CP2, Cameron LNG Phase II, Sabine Pass Stage V, Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Midscale 8-9, and Freeport LNG Expansion.
Instead of giving into Trump’s pressure to import + finance more LNG, leaders must invest in a just transition to renewable energy that will protect our communities from deadly pollution and climate disasters. Learn more: www.greenpeace.org/usa/failing-...
[image or embed]
— Oil Change International (@oilchange.bsky.social) July 9, 2025 at 6:57 AM
All but one of the projects is awaiting a final investment decision. None passes a "climate test" derived from the Department of Energy's (DOE) December 2024 LNG export public interest studies, as they all would result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regardless of sustainability measures including supply basin switching, LNG terminal methane abatement, and powering liquefaction with renewable electricity.
"Increasing LNG exports from the Gulf Coast would still lead to global GHG emissions increases above the level consistent with the DOE's most stringent climate mitigation scenario," the report states. Data suggests "no realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC," the more ambitious goal of the Paris climate agreement. Trump has twice withdrawn the United States from the landmark accord.
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate," Greenpeace USA senior research specialist Andres Chang, the report's lead author, said in a statement.
"The massive growth in infrastructure along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast has already created significant public health and ecosystem impacts, threatening entire coastal communities," Chang added. "But it doesn't stop there. This report shows that if built, these projects would put global climate goals even further out of reach."
"No realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC."
The United States is the world's leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a "bridge fuel"—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Despite his own DOE's acknowledgment that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis, former President Joe Biden oversaw what climate campaigners 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.
Trump—who during his 2024 campaign vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill" as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers—is planning to increase LNG exports even more, in part by invoking his bogus "energy emergency" to fast-track polluting projects.
A report published in January by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration sought to fast-track and found they would create 510 million metric tons of climate pollution—equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants.
Oil Change International noted Wednesday that "future administrations could revoke export authorizations that were rubber-stamped under Trump based on their failure to pass the DOE 'climate test,' which introduces a new layer of uncertainty to these already-risky projects."
The report also underscores that while the DOE climate test "is a major improvement upon previous federal analyses," its methodology "still fails to sufficiently account for emissions from large, accidental releases (such as 'super-emitter' events), equipment malfunction, and malpractice."
"High rates of methane emissions during the ocean transport stage of the LNG supply chain are also not represented," the report adds. "Incorporating measurement-based data and more realistic assumptions would make clearer the immense climate impact of building new liquefied gas infrastructure, especially in the near-term."
The report's authors call on the DOE to invoke the "climate test" to reject pending and future LNG export applications and exercise its authority under the Natural Gas Act "to reevaluate the public interest status of LNG projects that received authorizations without consideration of climate impacts or under analyses that predate the 2024 LNG Study."
The publication also calls on Congress to pass legislation "that makes it a statutory requirement under the Natural Gas Act to assess the climate impact of gas exports and reject applications that would increase global GHG emissions under a credible scenario to limit warming to 1.5ºC."
"Additionally, U.S. federal agencies should require all new proposed fossil fuel production and infrastructure projects to meet a similarly high standard under the National Environmental Policy Act," the report asserts.
"Energy purchasers, financial institutions, and foreign governments should refrain from entering into long-term offtake agreements for U.S. LNG and financing of LNG infrastructure," the authors wrote. "Instead, these parties should prioritize measures that accelerate the renewable energy transition and plan for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels. Group of Seven nations, in particular, should abide by their 2022 commitment to stop financing overseas fossil fuel infrastructure with taxpayer money."
James Hiatt, founder and director of the Lake Charles, Louisiana-based advocacy group For a Better Bayou, said Wednesday that "fossil fuel dependency has long externalized its true costs, forcing communities to bear the burden of pollution, sickness, and economic instability."
"For decades the oil and gas industry has known about the devastating health and climate impacts of its operations, yet it continues to expand, backed by billions in private and public financing," Hiatt continued. "These harms are not isolated—they're systemic, and they threaten all of us."
"This report is a call to conscience," he added. "It's time we stop propping up deadly false solutions and start investing in a transition to energy systems that sustain life, not sacrifice it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Trump Plan for 'Zombie' Coal Plants Will Make Energy Dirtier and Costlier
"The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills," said one opponent.
Jul 08, 2025
Green groups warned Tuesday that the Trump administration's plan to invoke a bogus "energy emergency" in order to keep old, polluting coal-fired plants running will make electricity generation dirtier and more expensive while failing to produce enough power to keep up with surging demand.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy published a resource adequacy analysis that includes plans for boosting fossil-fueled electricity generation, including at coal-fired plants. The report cites President Donald Trump's executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and strengthening the reliability and security of the nation's electric grid, and highlights the DOE's plan to classify aging fossil fuel plants as critical to system reliability. The administration is also likely to continue invoking Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act in order to extend the lifespans of older fossil fuel plants.
Although the analysis acknowledges that "old tools won't solve new problems," its methodology supports keeping expensive and polluting coal plants in operation. Dirty coal plants that continue to operate despite economic inefficiencies are sometimes called "zombie" plants.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient."
Not only does the report fail to state that the burning of fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency, it does not even mention the word "climate" once in its 73 pages. This tracks with the Trump administration's long-standing proscription of the term "climate change."
"The methodology released today is another attempt to push the false narrative that our country's energy future depends upon decades-old coal and gas plants, rather than clean renewables," said Sierra Club senior attorney Greg Wannier. "The only energy crisis faced by the American public is the catastrophic increase in costs that the Trump administration is forcing on the country's ratepayers."
Wannier noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and states "are already well equipped to meet any projected resource needs through the existing regulatory process, which ensures that electricity demand is reliably met at the least public cost."
"Any effort by DOE to override this process to forcibly keep coal plants online past their planned retirements would be an extraordinary and unlawful overreach of its regulatory authority," Wannier added. "It would be particularly harmful and costly to the communities living near these power plants who face the possibility of continued exposure to toxic levels of air and water pollution."
Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said Tuesday:
The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills for American families and businesses. This time it has issued a methodology that uses dodgy accounting to ignore all the clean energy we have at our disposal—including solar, wind, and battery technologies that are helping meet our nation's energy needs and support the reliability of our electric grid—in order to make a bogus case that these old, dirty power plants are needed. The administration's deeply flawed approach can't hide the fact that clean energy resources are helping keep lights on and lower electricity bills across the country, while keeping old, dirty power plants on life support will mean higher power bills for families and more toxic, cancer-causing pollution in the air we breathe.
The Trump administration has already used the nonexistent energy emergency in a push to fast-track fossil fuel permitting, keep fossil-fueled plants operating, and to wage lawfare against Democrat-controlled states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for its role in causing the climate emergency. In 2017, the first Trump administration also moved to bail out financially floundering coal and nuclear plants.
"No matter how they try to gussy it up, bailing out coal or other fossil fuels when low-cost solar and wind power is growing so quickly makes even less sense today than it did in 2017 when the previous Trump administration tried it before," Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in response to the DOE plan.
"It's ironic that the Energy Department is warning about reliability just days after Republicans in Congress repealed the clean energy tax credits," Kennedy added, referring to a provision in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump on Friday.
NRDC cites analysts' predictions that the legislation will reduce additions of the electricity needed to meet rapidly growing demand and raise wholesale electricity prices as much as 25% by 2030 and up to 74% by 2035.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient—all while saving consumers money on their electricity bills," Kennedy said. "Bailing out old, dirty coal, gas, and oil plants would mean higher costs and a less reliable grid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises Disaster Risk
"Simply put," said one critic, "the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
May 23, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on Friday that will overhaul the independent federal agency responsible for regulating the nation's nuclear power plants, aiming to expedite the construction of new nuclear reactors—a move that experts have warned will increase safety risks.
According to a White Housestatement, Trump's directives "will usher in a nuclear energy renaissance," in part by allowing Department of Energy laboratories to conduct nuclear reactor design testing, green-lighting reactor construction on federal lands, and lifting regulatory barriers "by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue timely licensing decisions."
The Trump administration is seeking to shorten the years-long NRC process of approving new licenses for nuclear power plants and reactors to within 18 months.
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident."
White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios said Friday that "over the last 30 years, we stopped building nuclear reactors in America—that ends now."
"We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy," he added.
However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned that the executive orders will result in "all but nullifying" the NRC's regulatory process, "undermining the independent federal agency's ability to develop and enforce safety and security requirements for commercial nuclear facilities."
"This push by the Trump administration to usurp much of the agency's autonomy as they seek to fast-track the construction of nuclear plants will weaken critical, independent oversight of the U.S. nuclear industry and poses significant safety and security risks to the public," UCS added.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the UCS, said, "Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
"By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions," Lyman added. "Such a disaster will destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject U.S. nuclear technology for decades to come."
Friday's executive orders follow reporting earlier this month by NPR that revealed the Trump administration has tightened control over the NRC, in part by compelling the agency to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, called the move "the end of independence of the agency."
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident," Macfarlane warned.
On the first day of his second term, Trump also signed executive orders declaring a dubious "national energy emergency" and directing federal agencies to find ways to reduce regulatory roadblocks to "unleashing American energy," including by boosting fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The rapid advancement and adoption of artificial intelligence systems is creating a tremendous need for energy that proponents say can be met by nuclear power. The Three Mile Island nuclear plant—the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history—is being revived with funding from Microsoft, while Google parent company Alphabet, online retail giant Amazon, and Facebook owner Meta are among the competitors also investing in nuclear energy.
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, asked in December.
"Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health," Neumann added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Serious Damage Has Been Done': Dem Lawmakers Slam DOGE Nuclear Safety Purge
The legislators said the Trump administration's move "calls into further question DOGE's competence to carry out its self-assigned task."
Feb 20, 2025
Decrying the Trump administration's firing of hundreds of workers at the agency in charge of nuclear weapons safety, a bicameral group of Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Thursday asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to provide assurances that members of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency cannot access classified systems or information.
"DOGE fired up to 350 staff members at the National Nuclear Security Administration. The NNSA is entrusted with safeguarding our nation's nuclear weapons, materials, and secrets," Rep. John Garamendi (Calif.) and Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), Cory Booker (N.J.), and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) wrote in a letter to Wright.
"Recklessly firing personnel without a strategic plan... is extraordinarily irresponsible and dangerous to U.S. national security."
"These terminations jeopardize the security of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, weaken our ability to detect and prevent threats to those weapons, and undermine our nonproliferation commitments," the letter asserts.
"Realizing the gravity of the mistake it had made, the Trump administration scrambled to rehire the fired employees," the Democrats noted. "Serious damage has been done. We urge you to immediately reassess these decisions, restore necessary expertise to the NNSA, and ensure that NNSA staffing decisions prioritize safety and security."
The letter continues:
The NNSA plays an essential role in maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. According to press reports, these firings occurred because "the officials did not seem to know this agency oversees America's nuclear weapons." The reckless decision to eliminate 350 positions, without a clear national security justification, raises serious concerns about the Department of Energy's (DOE) commitment to this core mission. DOE has struggled to rehire some of these employees "because they didn't have their new contact information." This series of events calls into further question DOGE's competence to carry out its self-assigned task.
While the lawmakers "fully support efforts to reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons, responsibly reduce the nuclear stockpile, and curb unnecessary spending on nuclear defense programs that do not enhance our security," they argued in the letter that "recklessly firing personnel without a strategic plan, particularly those with expertise in nonproliferation, security, and arms control oversight, is extraordinarily irresponsible and dangerous to U.S. national security."
The legislators are asking Wright to explain the process behind the NNSA officials' firings, the DOE's strategy for ensuring effective staffing and oversight at the agency, which workers have been rehired, and what steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access to classified systems by DOGE members.
"There is a right way to reduce the size and scope of our nuclear arsenal—one that enhances global security, properly safeguards our weapons, and reduces nuclear risks," the letter concludes. "These terminations do none of that."
Thursday's letter follows one sent to Wright last week by Markey and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) seeking clarification about whether any DOGE members have access to classified information about the nation's nuclear arsenal.
It also comes as global experts warn about the risk of nuclear war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last month moved the Doomsday Clock "from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deeply Concerned' Dems Want to Know If DOGE Can Access Nuclear Weapons Data
"The nation and the world need to know that U.S. nuclear secrets are robustly safeguarded," argue Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Don Beyer.
Feb 12, 2025
A pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday asked the Trump administration to clarify whether any members of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency have access to classified information about the nation's nuclear arsenal.
Responding to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright's admission that he granted DOGE associates access to the Department of Energy, and to reporting that a 23-year-old former intern at Musk's SpaceX was allowed into DOE's IT systems without the requisite security clearances, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)—both members of the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group—wrote to Wright to voice their concerns.
"The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an integral part of the Department of Energy, is entrusted with protecting the nation's most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. The nation and the world need to know that U.S. nuclear secrets are robustly safeguarded," the lawmakers wrote.
"It is, therefore, dangerously unacceptable that Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—including individuals lacking adequate security clearances—has been granted access to DOE's information technology (IT) system despite legitimate security concerns inside the agency," they added.
Elon Musk and DOGE are getting access to the department that controls nuclear material for bombs. If we were alarmed at his access to systems for Medicare payments, we should be horrified by their access to nuclear payloads. I will be demanding answers. www.reuters.com/world/us/thr...
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) February 9, 2025 at 2:17 PM
"There is no justification for relaxing basic security procedures when it comes to our nuclear stockpile, but recent actions reflect a brazen disregard for DOE security policies," Markey and Beyer argued. "DOE must ensure that all personnel with access to classified information and systems surrounding our nation's nuclear arsenal follow the highest security standards."
The letter continues:
Recently, you were quoted as saying that three individuals involved with DOGE are at DOE and "have access to look around, talk to people, and give us some good feedback on how things are going." And, according to media reports, a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern, who does not have the appropriate security clearances needed to access DOE's IT system, received access over the objections of members of its general counsel and chief information offices. This incursion into some of the nation's most sensitive files is the latest in a series of Trump administration moves to plant unqualified Musk and DOGE staffers throughout the federal government, some of whom have records of leaking sensitive information and potentially wreaking havoc with vital information systems.
"As members of the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, we are deeply concerned by this disregard of DOE security protocols and the potential impacts on our nuclear security," Markey and Beyer wrote.
The lawmakers asked Wright to answer the following questions by Friday:
- What is the process for granting, reviewing, and revoking security clearances for DOGE staffers at DOE?
- Have any DOGE staffers been given access to NNSA classified nuclear weapons information?
- Under what authority and justification was each instance of classified access granted to DOGE staffers?
- Are DOGE staffers required to undergo training on the handling of classified information?
- What security measures are in place to ensure DOGE staffers do not improperly access or inappropriately share sensitive nuclear secrets?
- Have any DOGE staffers with access to classified information had significant outside financial interests, foreign contacts, or other affiliations that could pose security concerns?
- Are NNSA employees included in the administration's buyout offer for federal employees?
- If so, and if senior NNSA employees leave the organization, how do you plan to maintain the security and secrecy of nuclear weapons and related information?
Appearing on
CNBC Friday, Wright dismissed "rumors" that DOGE members are "seeing our nuclear secrets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Liar and Fracking CEO Chris Wright Pilloried Ahead of Confirmation Hearing
"As fires level entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, the last thing we need is to put an oil CEO in charge of energy policy," said organizers.
Jan 15, 2025
With the U.S. Senate holding confirmation hearings for several of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees on Wednesday, climate organizers were joined by progressive lawmakers outside the Capitol to speak out against one potential administration official in particular—who they warned poses "a threat to our democracy and our future."
The subject of the press conference, organized by the Sunrise Movement, was Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright, whom Trump nominated to be secretary of energy.
"As fires level entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, the last thing we need is to put an oil CEO in charge of energy policy," said the group, referring to deadly wildfires that have destroyed an estimated 12,300 buildings, including thousands of homes, in recent days.
The press conference was just the latest expression of outrage over Trump's selection of Wright, who contributed $400,000 to Trump's campaign in what Sunrise said was an effort "to buy the energy secretary role."
The Sierra Club called Wright the "personification of 'conflict of interest,'" noting that he has spent decades denying the connection between his company's work and the climate emergency while "getting rich from polluting, dangerous fracking for methane gas."
"Wright made it clear that, if confirmed, he'd hinder clean energy investment and promote fossil fuels like LNG exports, further enriching himself and his fellow oil and gas CEOs while we continue to pay the price with more pollution and higher energy costs," said Mahyar Sorour, director of Beyond Fossil Fuels policy for Sierra Club. "As Americans from coast to coast are living with the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis, the last thing we need is a climate-denying fossil fuel executive at the helm of our nation's energy policy."
In 2021, Wright said on a podcast that planetary heating "is not" fueling wildfires—a claim directly at odds with scientists' warning that the changing climate, driven by fossil fuel extraction, is increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires in Western states as well as areas that have historically faced far less destructive fire seasons.
He doubled down on the claim in 2023 as smoke from intense wildfires in Canada drifted across the U.S. East Coast, writing in a post on LinkedIn that "the hype over wildfires is just hype to justify" Democratic climate policies, and last year he told the House Financial Services Committee that "it is popular today to suggest that somehow in the next 10 or 30 years we are going to 'transition' fully away from fossil fuels. This cannot and will not happen."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday shared a video Wright posted to LinkedIn last year, in which he asserted, "We have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods despite endless fear mongering of the media, politicians and activists."
"What on Earth is this man talking about?" asked Schumer. "Is he such an idealogue that he doesn't see the truth of the world around him?"
Should he be confirmed to lead the Department of Energy (DOE), said Allie Rosenbluth, United States program manager at Oil Change International (OCI), on Monday, Wright would "do his best to put a rapid end to President [Joe] Biden's pause on new authorizations for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports." The move would raise the price of electricity, increasing prices for U.S. households by 30%, according to a recent analysis by Public Citizen, and would increase greenhouse gas emissions.
"While these actions will face stiff legal challenges and public outrage, if allowed to go forward, they will harm public health and safety for the sake of fossil fuel industry profits," said Rosenbluth. "According to the International Energy Agency, any new fossil fuel development is incompatible with meeting our climate goals and protecting our communities from devastating climate disasters like the Los Angeles fires."
Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government affairs of the League of Conservation Voters, said Trump's nomination of Wright is a signal that the Republican president-elect "is following through on the $1 billion offer he made to Big Oil at a dinner this spring," when he urged executives to donate to his campaign in return for rolled back climate regulations once Trump is in office.
"It is not surprising, but still appalling that Trump's pick for secretary of energy is a climate-denying Big Oil executive," said Sittenfeld.
Accountable.US called on senators weighing Wright's nomination to consider several facts about his career in the fracking industry before voting to confirm him as energy secretary, including:
- Liberty Energy has seven subsidiaries, several of which have business interests before the DOE;
- One subsidiary, Liberty Oilfield Services, operates facilities that the Environmental Protection Agency has cited for repeat Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations and noncompliance with Clean Water Act (CWA) reporting standards;
- Wright sits on the board of directors of the Western Energy Alliance, which has spent $675,000 on oil and gas lobbying during his tenure; and
- The Western Energy Alliance submitted a public comment in 2023 regarding the DOE's gas stove rule raising fuel efficiency requirements.
"Chris Wright's confirmation would be a win for Big Oil and a loss for climate action, environmental justice, and clean energy progress," said Accountable.US on Wednesday. "His track record shows he's unfit to serve as secretary of energy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Disastrous Mistake': Trump Taps Fracking CEO Chris Wright for Energy Secretary
"This is going to be the oiliest administration since George W. Bush," lamented one environmental campaigner.
Nov 16, 2024
In a move that alarmed green groups, Republican President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday tapped Chris Wright—the CEO of a fracking company who denies the climate emergency—as his energy secretary.
Wright, who leads the Denver-based oil services company Liberty Energy, is a Republican donor whose nomination to head the Department of Energy is backed by powerful fossil fuel boosters including oil and gas tycoon and Trump adviser Harold Hamm.
"Chris has been a leading technologist and entrepreneur in Energy. He has worked in Nuclear, Solar, Geothermal, and Oil and Gas," Trump said in a statement announcing his choice. "Most significantly, Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American Shale Revolution that fueled American Energy Independence, and transformed the Global Energy Markets and Geopolitics."
"Not surprising but still appalling that Trump's pick for Energy Secretary is a Big Oil CEO."
Trump—who has promised to increase fossil fuel production beyond the record-setting levels of the Biden administration—also said Wright would serve on a new Council of National Energy led by Doug Burgum, his pick to run the Interior Department.
In a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, Wright said that he is "honored and grateful for the opportunity" to be nominated by Trump.
"My dedication to bettering human lives remains steadfast, with a focus on making American energy more affordable, reliable, and secure," he added. "Energy is the lifeblood that makes everything in life possible. Energy matters. I am looking forward to getting to work."
Wright calls himself "a lifelong environmentalist" and said last year that "climate change is a real problem." However, he also said in 2023 that "there is no such thing as clean energy or dirty energy" and that "there is no climate crisis and we're not in the midst of an energy transition either."
While fossil fuel proponents cheered Wright's nomination, climate and environmental defenders voiced alarm over the pick.
"Not surprising but still appalling that Trump's pick for Energy Secretary is a Big Oil CEO," League of Conservation Voters senior vice president for government affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld wrote on X.
Natural Resources Defense Council senior vice president for climate and energy Jackie Wong blasted Wright as "a champion of fossil fuels" whose nomination was "a disastrous mistake."
"The Energy Department should be doing all it can to develop and expand the energy sources of the 21st century, not trying to promote the dirty fuels of the last century," Wong said in a statement reported by The Associated Press. "Given the devastating impacts of climate-fueled disasters, DOE's core mission of researching and promoting cleaner energy solutions is more important now than ever."
Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, lamented that "this is going to be the oiliest administration since George W. Bush."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Urged to 'Follow the Facts' as Study Shows LNG Emissions 33% Worse Than Coal
"The science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals," said one campaigner.
Sep 12, 2024
More than 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists and researchers on Thursday implored the Biden administration to "follow legitimate science and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs," pointing to a new study showing liquefied natural gas has a 33% greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal.
"As U.S. scientists and researchers we are closely following efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Treasury to develop greenhouse gas analyses of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen, and implore you to use the best available science when conducting this analysis," the scientists wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
"The stakes could not be higher," the letter asserts. "The choices that you make relating to modeling assumptions for the heat-trapping potential of natural gas will determine if the federal government will make decisions based on climate science or wishful thinking."
The scientists continued:
The main constituent in natural gas is methane, a powerful climate-disrupting pollutant that traps more than 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years, the relevant timeframe in which we must act. We agree with President [Joe] Biden's declaration to world leaders that this is the decisive decade. As the climate crisis becomes more urgent, we are rapidly approaching planetary thresholds that, once breached, cannot be reversed.
The fossil fuel industry wants you to distort the scientific evidence and asserts, falsely, that decisions to expand natural gas production and consumption are consistent with U.S. and global climate goals. They are advocating for flawed modeling assumptions that would hide the true climate impact of gas. It is imperative that the Departments of Energy and Treasury reject these efforts.
The letter's signers cite a study published this month by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth which—when properly accounting for LNG's full life cycle, including extraction, liquefaction, transportation, and end-source combustion—found that the fracked gas has a 33% greater greenhouse emissions impact than coal.
"An abundance of scientific evidence now shows that natural gas is at least as damaging to the climate as coal and may be worse due to inevitable leaks and disproves the claim that natural gas can serve as a 'bridge fuel' while renewable energy sources ramp up," the scientists wrote.
Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement that "the science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals."
"This administration must ignore industry propaganda, follow legitimate science, and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs like LNG exports and gas-sourced hydrogen," Walsh added.
Noting that "over 20 years, methane is a far more powerful climate villain than ever previously appreciated," Science & Environmental Health Network senior scientist Sandra Steingraber said that "methane is the Houdini of greenhouse gasses, escaping into the atmosphere from all parts of the natural gas system at a pace that far exceeds earlier estimates."
"Taken together, these findings mean that the stakes for the modeling assumptions chosen for estimating the climate impacts of LNG and hydrogen fuels could not be higher," Steingraber stressed. "It's imperative that our Departments of Energy and Treasury base their climate modeling assumptions on the abundance of scientific evidence and not the distorted claims and wishful thinking of the fossil fuel industry."
Despite campaign pledges to center climate action—including by banning new fossil fuel drilling on public lands—Biden oversaw the approval of more new permits for drilling on public land during his first two years in office than former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee, did in 2017 and 2018.
The Biden administration has also held fossil fuel lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and has approved the highly controversial Willow project and Mountain Valley Pipeline. Biden also increased liquefied natural gas production and export before pausing LNG exports earlier this year.
Despite the pause—which activists are calling on the Biden administration to make permanent—the president has also overseen what climate defenders have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects that, if all completed, would make U.S. exported LNG emissions higher than the European Union's combined greenhouse gas footprint.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With US in Deep Freeze, LNG Exports Blamed for Spike in Domestic Gas Prices
"Exports of LNG have created higher prices for U.S. consumers, leaving them vulnerable to massive price spikes like what happened this weekend," said one expert.
Jan 16, 2024
With millions of Americans suffering sub-zero temperatures under a deadly Arctic blast, a leading consumer advocate on Tuesday attributed the fivefold increase in the U.S. benchmark price of natural gas to the recent "explosion in LNG exports."
As the National Weather Service warns of continued near-record temperatures and wind chills affecting over 100 million people—mainly in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions and as far south as Texas—plunging mercury means soaring demand for fuel across much of the continental U.S.
This, in turn, sent liquefied natural gas prices skyward, with the spot price of gas from Henry Hub in Louisiana—the official delivery location for futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange—soaring 400%, according to Bloomberg.
"The explosion in LNG exports since 2016 has resulted in a far more fragile and volatile balance between supply and demand."
But the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen says there's another explanation for sky-high LNG prices besides the deep freeze.
"The explosion in LNG exports since 2016 has resulted in a far more fragile and volatile balance between supply and demand," said Tyson Slocum, head of the group's energy program. "Exports of LNG have created higher prices for U.S. consumers, leaving them vulnerable to massive price spikes like what happened this weekend. U.S. gas demand hit a record high over the weekend, led by record exports."
Slocum added that the U.S. Energy Department "has failed to implement procedures restricting gas exports during extreme weather events, or proactively establish seasonal standards to curtail exports in advance of pending extreme weather events."
The Biden administration has presided over what climate campaigners 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 all of Europe's combined greenhouse gas footprint, according to climate campaigner Bill McKibben.
McKibben and others have called on President Joe Biden to halt LNG exports.
"Nearly 90 years ago, Congress mandated that most natural gas could only be exported if the government first determined that doing so was 'consistent with the public interest,'" noted Slocum. "The Biden administration's Energy Department is in charge of enforcing this law, and has presided over unprecedented volumes of natural gas exports, exacerbating higher prices during winter storms."
"The Biden administration must follow the directive mandated by Congress and reassess its methodology for authorizing LNG exports, and establish proactive standards to curtail exports in the event of emergencies and seasonal demand surges," Slocum added.
Under mounting pressure to keep the president's promise to transition away from fossil fuels, the Biden administration is
reportedly considering a review of its LNG export approval process, with an eye toward whether it is properly accounting for their climate impacts.
While supporters of LNG claim it's one of the safest fossil fuels to produce and transport, critics point to the numerous explosions and fires at gas facilities in recent years, as well as the worsening climate emergency caused and exacerbated by fossil fuel extraction and use.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Warn Record US Fracked Gas Exports 'Bad News for Our Climate and Public Health'
"It is time for the White House to put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits," said one campaigner.
Oct 04, 2023
As the U.S. Department of Energy announced that the nation set a new record for fossil gas exports during the first half of 2023, green advocacy groups on Wednesday implored the Biden administration to "put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits" by halting gas projects and exports.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "the United States exported more natural gas in the first half of 2023... than it did in the same period of any previous year," with exports averaging 20.4 billion cubic feet per day. The U.S. is the world's leading liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter.
"Record exports of fossil fuels are a direct result of Biden administration policies that are expanding fracking, pipelines, and LNG export facilities, all of which threaten to lock the world into more climate-warming emissions from fossil fuels," Jim Walsh, policy director at the group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.
"These policies are bad news for our climate and public health, but will also continue to push up energy prices for U.S. consumers, and will slow the transition to more affordable, clean renewable energy options," Walsh added.
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, accused the Biden administration of largely ignoring an 85-year-old federal mandate in the Natural Gas Act requiring exports to most countries to be "consistent with the public interest."
"As a result, our record gas exports expose American households to higher energy prices and increased price volatility, poison Black and Brown communities who bear the brunt of LNG expansion on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and exacerbate the climate crisis," Slocum said. "The exports also drive increased domestic fracking and promote fossil fuels that compete with renewable energy."
“The Biden administration must halt all export authorizations until it acknowledges the impact record exports have on worsening domestic energy security for vulnerable Americans and commits to respect the public interest mandate," he added.
In addition to approving or backing climate-wrecking fossil fuel expansion including the Willow Project in Alaska, the Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia, and oil drilling on public lands and offshore, the Biden administration has supported and expanded LNG projects at home and abroad with a special focus on export infrastrcture.
Reacting to the EIA figures, Walsh said that "President Biden has a chance to reverse this dangerous trend. He can match his climate rhetoric with real climate action by determining that the proposed Calcasieu Pass 2... project in Louisiana, which would be the country's largest export facility for fossil gas, is not in the public interest."
"It is time for the White House to put the public interest and our climate future ahead of fossil fuel industry profits," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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