By Where National Strength is Sacrificed for Climate Ideals – The Biden Administration’s Misstep in Energy Policy
In a move that’s sparked intense backlash from Senate Republicans, the Biden administration recently announced a pause on several key liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects, citing climate concerns. This decision, made public last Friday by White House and Department of Energy (DOE) officials, is being lambasted by twenty-four Senate Republicans, including the group’s leader, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. They argue that this action surrenders the United States’ energy dominance to nations like Russia and Iran and undermines the energy security of our allies in Europe and Asia. These LNG projects are more than just commercial ventures; they are vital lifelines supporting our allies striving to reduce dependence on Russian energy.
The Republicans’ letter to President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm emphasized the significant impact of American LNG exports, which have bolstered U.S. geopolitical influence and international energy security since 2016. They pointed out that U.S. LNG plays a crucial role in the energy security of not only European nations but also Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India.
The group was unequivocal in its criticism: curtailing U.S. LNG exports will not reduce the global demand for natural gas. Instead, it will leave a void to be filled by countries with less stringent environmental regulations, such as Russia and Iran. This could, ironically, lead to an increase in global emissions, the very outcome the Biden administration claims to be fighting against.
The order from President Biden last Friday to halt pending permits for LNG export facilities while initiating a lengthy environmental review process came as a shock. This decision is perceived as a major win for climate activists, who have recently intensified their calls for such actions, even threatening civil disobedience protests in Washington, D.C. In a statement, President Biden justified this halt as part of his broader climate agenda, addressing what he describes as the “existential threat of our time,” and criticized “MAGA Republicans” for denying the urgency of the climate crisis.
The pause’s impact on proposed LNG projects remains unclear, but it’s expected to affect at least four major projects that have already gone through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval process and are awaiting DOE approval. According to recent federal data, several other projects in various approval stages could also face delays or cancellations in the future.
In his letter, Sen. Bill Cassidy urges President Biden and Secretary Granholm to reconsider this decision, highlighting the importance of American LNG exports for the environmental, economic, and national security benefits they offer both to the United States and our allies. This sentiment is shared by various U.S. fossil fuel industry associations and international energy interests.
The decision stands in stark contrast to President Biden’s earlier commitment to the European Union, made in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to increase U.S. LNG exports to the bloc. This commitment had been seen as a sign of the White House’s pledge to “maintain its regulatory environment,” a stance that now appears to have been reversed.
Democratic opposition to LNG export terminals, often supported by environmentalist groups, argues that these facilities contribute to harmful pollution and global warming. This perspective has gained momentum on social media, with activist videos amassing millions of views in recent months. Groups like the Sierra Club have praised the administration’s recent decision, with Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous hailing it as a significant step towards phasing out fossil fuels and confronting the climate crisis head-on, viewing it as a victory for communities against the dangers of LNG.
However, for many, particularly in conservative circles, this decision by the Biden administration is seen as a significant misstep, prioritizing environmental concerns over national security and energy independence, and inadvertently strengthening the hand of our global adversaries.
