With the Biden administration's analysis potentially complicating Trump's gas export plans, environmentalists may use it in future legal battles.
Gas Exports: Economic Boon or Environmental Bane?
Gas Exports: Economic Boon or Environmental Bane?
A recent study raises concerns about the implications of increasing liquefied natural gas exports.
The Biden administration on Tuesday introduced a comprehensive study evaluating the economic and environmental implications of increasing liquefied natural gas (L.N.G) exports, which may pose challenges to President-elect Donald J. Trump's plans to endorse new export terminal projects.
The study, conducted by the Energy Department, suggests that further expanding L.N.G. exports could elevate domestic energy costs by making the U.S. market more susceptible to volatile international prices. It also points out the potential negative effects on coastal communities, where the establishment of new export terminals could lead to increased pollution, along with a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
While the report stops short of outright opposing additional gas exports, it recognizes the economic advantages and enhanced energy security that increased exports have provided for crucial U.S. allies, such as those in Europe. The incoming Trump administration is anticipated to favor plans for new L.N.G. export facilities, despite the study's warnings.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm expressed hope that the incoming administration would carefully consider the findings of the review to decide if expanding L.N.G. exports aligns with the interests of American citizens and the economy. In a letter accompanying the study, Granholm emphasized a critical view, arguing that a "business-as-usual" mentality regarding L.N.G. exports is neither sustainable nor advisable—an assertion that significantly enhances the caution outlined by the researchers.
Environmental activists are likely to leverage this analysis in forthcoming legal efforts aimed at contesting the construction of new export facilities, suggesting a contentious battle ahead over America's energy future.
The study, conducted by the Energy Department, suggests that further expanding L.N.G. exports could elevate domestic energy costs by making the U.S. market more susceptible to volatile international prices. It also points out the potential negative effects on coastal communities, where the establishment of new export terminals could lead to increased pollution, along with a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
While the report stops short of outright opposing additional gas exports, it recognizes the economic advantages and enhanced energy security that increased exports have provided for crucial U.S. allies, such as those in Europe. The incoming Trump administration is anticipated to favor plans for new L.N.G. export facilities, despite the study's warnings.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm expressed hope that the incoming administration would carefully consider the findings of the review to decide if expanding L.N.G. exports aligns with the interests of American citizens and the economy. In a letter accompanying the study, Granholm emphasized a critical view, arguing that a "business-as-usual" mentality regarding L.N.G. exports is neither sustainable nor advisable—an assertion that significantly enhances the caution outlined by the researchers.
Environmental activists are likely to leverage this analysis in forthcoming legal efforts aimed at contesting the construction of new export facilities, suggesting a contentious battle ahead over America's energy future.
