Recent developments in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export policies and infrastructure have sparked intense debate over its economic, environmental, and social implications. While proponents of LNG claim it is a bridge fuel to renewable energy, mounting evidence shows that its expansion threatens climate goals, public health, and global energy equity. Here’s why LNG is a false solution and why its unchecked growth should be stopped.
LNG production involves cooling natural gas to liquid form for transportation, a process requiring immense energy. Critics often highlight three major issues:
LNG is marketed as a cleaner alternative to coal, but this claim crumbles under scrutiny. Studies reveal that methane leakage during extraction, processing, and transport makes LNG as polluting—if not worse—than coal. Methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years, undermines any purported climate benefits of LNG.
The Biden administration’s December 2024 report warned that expanding LNG exports would raise domestic natural gas prices by over 30% by 2050, adding more than $100 annually to household energy bills. Rising costs disproportionately burden low-income families, exacerbating energy inequality.
LNG export terminals, pipelines, and associated infrastructure have lifespans exceeding 20 years. Their construction locks in fossil fuel dependence at a time when rapid transitions to renewable energy are critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C climate target.
LNG terminals emit hazardous air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which cause respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and even premature deaths. A recent Greenpeace and Sierra Club analysis found that currently operating LNG terminals are responsible for 60 premature deaths annually in the U.S., with that number potentially rising to 149 if planned projects proceed. Marginalized communities—predominantly Black, Hispanic, and low-income populations—bear the brunt of these impacts.
The rush to build LNG infrastructure often leaves vulnerable populations behind. For example:
When LNG prices surge, developing nations struggle to afford energy. Bangladesh’s suspension of LNG imports in 2023 led to widespread blackouts, underscoring the volatility of relying on this energy source.
Despite vast gas reserves, 92% of investment in African LNG projects targets exports to wealthier nations, leaving 600 million Africans without electricity. This perpetuates energy poverty and economic instability.
LNG infrastructure poses significant threats to biodiversity. For instance:
Proposed terminals in the Philippines threaten the Verde Island Passage, home to the world’s highest marine biodiversity. Pollution and construction activities have already degraded water quality and reduced fish populations.
Methane leakage and energy-intensive liquefaction processes contribute to massive greenhouse gas emissions, making LNG incompatible with the global transition to clean energy.
The Biden administration’s pause on new LNG export permits in January 2024 marked a crucial step in reassessing its environmental and economic impacts. The December 2024 Department of Energy (DOE) report strengthened the case against unfettered LNG expansion by highlighting its role in raising domestic energy costs and exacerbating climate change. However, President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to overturn these restrictions, prioritizing “energy dominance” over environmental and public health concerns.
LNG is not the future of energy. It’s a costly detour that delays the inevitable transition to renewables. Together, we can advocate for policies that prioritize clean energy, public health, and climate justice.
01/11/2025 – This article has been written by the FalseSolutions.Org team
