In some ways these expansions of fossil fuel infrastructure are just bad business, and Biden is saving investors billions of dollars (as well as cutting off a channel for millions of hours of lobbyists trying to keep them relevant through bad policy).
Utility batteries are already scuttling dozens of gas power plants, and they will drop in cost by 40% over the next two years. Similarly EVs will become cheaper than combustion vehicles. Everyone will want one -- especially people with garages where they can plug them in. 40% of the new vehicles sold in China last year had plugs in them, and that’s the largest auto market in the world. They may stop buying combustion vehicles entirely by 2027.
Fossil fuel companies will start going bankrupt by 2030. Too many old Americans getting their news from Fox and Sinclair Broadcasting are just being told what they want to -- that everything was better when they were younger and things aren’t really changing. And this does drive voting and consumption. But it doesn’t CONTROL it.
Here in Los Angeles EVs are everywhere everywhere everywhere already.
And of course these LNG terminals were for exporting. They were pitched as a way to save the EU from Putin’s energy blackmail. But the EU -- especially Germany -- is steering away from Russian energy and fossil fuels in a big way. By the time these terminals had been built, many of the markets for them would have been gone already.
We just need to make sure developing nations in Africa do not bother with fossil fuel infrastructure. There’s a lot of noise there, and decision-makers seem to be unsure what is true.
This is a mish mosh of "green" opinions and a recommendation at the end ("..Africa do not bother with fossil fuel infrastructure") so tone deaf to energy poverty in the third world as to be stunning. Written by a California based activist with no expertise in energy, environment, or economics.
Don't confuse yourself. "The economy" is imploding — and going to get worse — because human civilization is in a state of extreme ecological overshoot, and the natural foundations of "the economy" are now crumbling from its weight.
Moving to renewables is simply an intelligent acknowledgement of that fact... not the cause of it.
The global financial system requires growth to sustain itself. Without efficient energy systems, there will either be a deflationary depression or, more likely, a period of socially destructive inflation. A shift to renewables, which are inefficient from an EROEI point of view, will cause this. Gail the Actuary (Our Finite World) has written extensively about this.
Nope — you are still missing the point. Collapse is the inevitable result of ecological overshoot, and human civilization has been in a state of ecological overshoot for AT LEAST 50-100 years.
THAT is the primary driver of collapse, today, and — as a result — our current economic and finance systems SHALL fail in the very near future.
The question is, "what should we do about it?"
There are only two options:
1. Proactive contraction of human and economic activities (i.e. #degrowth)
=or=
2. Uncontrolled collapse.
THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION.
(1) would require replacement of today's economic systems, systems of finance, and societal modalities — but holds the possibility of preservation of some of the positives of advanced human civilization.
(2) results in a total loss of everything, in almost the same time-frame.
Since you like Gail T. — who is not some ultimate authority, btw — you might be interested to know that, when I gave a more detailed version of these observations, in response to one of her articles, she replied that — yes (I was correct) — that it would be best to crash the whole (current) system, in order to rapidly cut fossil fuels — since that is the only potential way to avoid total annihilation of human civilization.
--
Guess what — there is no unlimited growth on a planet with limited bio-physical resources.
And we've over-polluted, over-built, and over-extracted for long enough that global ecosystems are now spiraling on the verge of total collapse.
--
Fantasize if you want, but do it in your own space — these are the realities.
Oh I see where you are coming from. Continuing a long tradition of predicting the end of the world. You may be underestimating human ingenuity and creativity. And technological progress and innovation.
Oh. I see where you are coming from. Continuing a long tradition of disinformation trolls.
You may be underestimating the fact that the natural world has begun to collapse — and as a spoiled child at the top of privilege during the era of peak prosperity — the fact that sometimes, when things run out, they are gone.
The world burns more coal today than ever. Yes, there has been a transition in the US, but not on a global basis. All those solar panels are made in China, where silica is produced by -- you guessed it -- burning coal for industrial heat. Perhaps you might take a look at Doomberg on Substack. Or read Vaclav Smil, who knows more about these topics than you or I ever will ...
As renewables become the dominant source of power for the grid, the cost of electricity goes up. This is not supposition. If you look at the actual cost of electricity by country relative to renewable penetration, there is near perfect correlation. Germany is now uncompetitive in many industrial activities, which is why the industrial part of the economy is shrinking. Ultimately this will result in a declining standard of living, social unrest, etc.
While renewables generally pencil out as competitive using approaches such as Levelized Cost of Energy models, their intermittency characteristics raise the cost when accounting for energy storage and transmission. In short, the energetics of renewables are vastly inferior to fossil fuels.
Think of water reservoirs. In order to ensure that water comes out of the tap every time you turn it on, you need a reservoir which can withstand prolonged periods of drought. Most metropolitan areas declare a water emergency when reservoirs fall below 60% of capacity. Put this in renewable terms, and you need energy storage that is multiples of peak demand.
One final point: there has never, in the history of the world, been an “energy transition”. This is a “Big Lie”. New sources of energy are additive to legacy sources.
"Most metropolitan areas declare a water emergency when reservoirs fall below 60% of capacity", because rainfall is far more intermittent then worst case renewables. And storage costs are starting to plummet just as renewables have.
"renewable energy sources considerably reduced electricity prices by between 2.89 ct/kWh in 2014 to 8.89 ct/kWh in 2017. This allowed German end-consumers to save a total of 40 billion € from 2014 to 2018."
As I said earlier, I think the DC "sit in" about CP2 should morph into a "Thank You Biden" demonstration!
I love this report: "The New York State Legislature is about to consider Senate Bill 278A/Assembly Bill 1559A, introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember JoAnne Simon and co-sponsored by elected representatives from across our diverse state. Adapted from an earlier version of the bill, the current bill has been drafted by an intergenerational and geographically diverse committee of high school students, teachers, parents, professors, and other educational professionals from Buffalo to the Adirondacks, and down to New York City: truly a state-wide effort." I hope that Vermont will draft a similar bill.
Nikki Haley: “We will get the EPA out of the way,” she said at the Jan. 3 event. “We will speed up the permitting process, we’ll get our pipelines going, we’ll do the Keystone pipeline, we’ll export as much liquefied natural gas as we can.”
How sad that that the citizens of Dumbfuckistan don’t realize that their party’s policies are going to destroy the environment that everything depends on to stay alive.
Both Plaquemines and Calcasieu Pass are FULLY BUILT and ALREADY PERMITTED but not yet shipping LNG because of "mechanical unreliability." They will both begin shipments at the earliest in 2026. This means that Biden could refuse to grant another LNG permit and we could still expand LNG basically to critical market saturation. There's no real market for LNG beyond what's already built and permitted; this move allows Biden to score political points while not crossing his dear friends in the LNG business.
It is pretty amazing that the policies used to figure out if "[LNG exports]" are in the “public interest” have not already been "updated to include modern economics and science." Who would want less? I fear, however, that opponents of the project want far more, total blockage of this (and similar) projects.
My supposition is that a competent updating would result in the projects being approved if only climate change considerations are (only now?) being taken into consideration. The miniscule impact non-approval of this project will have on international gas prices and hence the minimal impact it will have of reducing natural gas use means its approval will have a minimal impact on CO2 emissions.
I would like to. present something I think is new and valuable (and I didn't think of it) to add to the solving the climate change conversation. I honor your conversation that so many are tapped into and think you are a brilliant, caring, courageous human being, Bill McKibben.
I have been in the movement that Peter Fiekowsky is leading to create called Climate Restoration. This mean removing vast amounts of excess CO2 and methane (primarily) from the atmosphere. The excess GHG's in the atmosphere are what is causing the warming. Yes, we put them there and we need to stop. We now really have no choice but to also deal with what is already warming us that is already up there, however. It's mostly CO2 and it doesn't break down for hundreds of years up to as long as 1000 years.
Scientists have been thinking about this "other" issue besides the very real issue of excess emissions. The earth has warmed enough that tipping points have been breached and the feed back loops are now feeding CO2 and methane into the atmosphere in addition to what humans are emitting. What may be possible: Removing the excess 40% of GHG'S in the atmosphere could slow down the increasing climate disasters relatively quickly. Removing the excess GHG's could cool the earth enough that instead of paying for disaster relief, we could be incentivizing the shift to electrification and use of solar, wind, geothermal and other noncarbon sources of energy. It takes time to rid ourselves of fossil fuels and make the switch to safer energy for humans and all of life on earth. I am hoping that you, Bill McKibbens, will take on promoting Carbon Dioxide Removal and Methane Oxidation that will change methane to CO2 that is less heating and easier to remove. I hope you will look into the existing projects that may be able to do this at scale and affordably. They need more tests on a larger scale to find out if they are free of unintended, unacceptable consequences. You and your readers can go to peterfiekowsky.com or to F4CR.org for more details.
This type of thinking gives me hope that we can save ourselves in time, that we can turn the clock back on climate change and reverse it in many ways. There are things set in motion, like sea level rise, that we may not be able to reverse but if we get moving we can minimize. There will still need to be lots of ecosystem restoration. Certainly we need to finish the transition to non-carbon energy, and solar is the cheapest source of energy now, so it should happen. Climate Restoration could give us a little more time to get that done. It feels like we need a magic switch to do this instantly to be "soon enough." Perhaps what we need is the slow down of climate disasters that Climate Restoration just might be able to deliver.
"The pledge to 'transition away from fossil fuels' that John Kerry and the rest of the world’s governments signed in Dubai was given actual meaning by Biden’s move."
Was it? I'll believe we're "transitioning away from fossil fuels" when I see a timeline for dismantling fossil fuel infrastructure.
I’m seeing more and more wins from the greater public. That said, I have no doubt the BIG Oil is the proverbial dying beast who’s become more dangerous exponentially.. with each passing day. I feel torn between pain and determination that life affirming change is happening. That it will pick up speed. I’m like a country divided between the enI’m seeing more and more wins from the greater public. That said, I have no doubt the BIG Oil is the proverbial dying beast who’s become more dangerous exponentially.. with each passing day. I feel torn between pain and determination that life affirming change is happening. That it will pick up speed. I’m like a country divided between the energy of my intentions and hearing the words of the poet, Dylan Thomas. Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rave at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Some useful warnings in that article before we rest too long on our laurels.
I have to say, however, that Vox really blew it on the climate analysis part of its piece ("Is LNG at least better for the climate?... If it replaces coal, then in general, yes"). It leads without challenge with two LNG industry assessments claiming that LNG has a smaller footprint than coal. The lead author of both studies is Selina A. Roman-White who works for Cheniere Energy, https://www.linkedin.com/in/selina-roman-white-147711167/ Cheniere claims to be the biggest LNG producer in the US and 2nd largest global LNG operator https://www.cheniere.com/ She previously worked for KeyLogic a consultant to big defense and energy industry players with government contracts.
No mention of the Howarth study.
Vox does later mention "environmental activists" concerns over leakage (as if it is only activists raising that alarm - how about NOAA?) and does cite one UK study that found LNG was 4X worse than local gas. Then makes the contradictory statement: "some LNG exports will simply fill in existing gas needs, as they do in parts of Europe, so the climate impact overall is at best a wash, though likely worse than more locally produced gas." Huh? A wash or 4X worse? Quite a difference between those two scenarios.
I agree that all things to reduce use of fossil fuels should be done. In ENEnergy we plan to make all fossil liquids plus coal redundant. Read more about us on www.enenergy.net
Biden's pause on new LNG export terminal licenses is a great step, in the sense of the precedent it sets — and (of course) Donald Trump cannot be allowed to assume the presidency — BUT.... aside from its precedent, this move amounts to very little, for the following reasons:
1. It is temporary — it basically asks for review before new export terminal licenses can be granted. (This could easily go the way of Barack Obama's election campaign promised to halt mountain-top-removal mining — after an almost non-existent review process, all but one project were green-lighted.)
2. It is extremely limited — it applies only to ***NEW*** ***EXPORT*** terminal licenses.
3. The "climate test" McKibben mentions doesn't actually exist, yet, except as a brief and vague concept — it has not been expressed in concrete language, and tested in practice... or in the courts.
As for comparisons with the FY2022 "Inflation Reduction Act, " it should be clear, now, that it did more to prolong the use of fossil fuels than to meet emissions-reductions targets.
I agree with this statement, seen recently in a comment in another group, by Juan Spumoni — "The IRA does almost nothing to reduce GHG emissions and $389 Billion will do nothing to change a $25 Trillion economy based on 80% Fossil Fuel Consumption. The numbers just don't add up. It is about 0.15% of what would be necessary, A simple linear regression between energy production and GDP has a correlation coefficient of 0.997.You cannot run a $25 Trillion economy based on 80% Fossil Fuel use and expect 0.15% of GDP investment per year into Climate Stability to accomplish anything."
Might not get too overconfident about what this really means. Could be nothing more than an election year political ploy to keep regressive "environmentalists" on side through November.
The former Senator from Dupont understands how to play this game all too well.
In some ways these expansions of fossil fuel infrastructure are just bad business, and Biden is saving investors billions of dollars (as well as cutting off a channel for millions of hours of lobbyists trying to keep them relevant through bad policy).
Utility batteries are already scuttling dozens of gas power plants, and they will drop in cost by 40% over the next two years. Similarly EVs will become cheaper than combustion vehicles. Everyone will want one -- especially people with garages where they can plug them in. 40% of the new vehicles sold in China last year had plugs in them, and that’s the largest auto market in the world. They may stop buying combustion vehicles entirely by 2027.
Fossil fuel companies will start going bankrupt by 2030. Too many old Americans getting their news from Fox and Sinclair Broadcasting are just being told what they want to -- that everything was better when they were younger and things aren’t really changing. And this does drive voting and consumption. But it doesn’t CONTROL it.
Here in Los Angeles EVs are everywhere everywhere everywhere already.
And of course these LNG terminals were for exporting. They were pitched as a way to save the EU from Putin’s energy blackmail. But the EU -- especially Germany -- is steering away from Russian energy and fossil fuels in a big way. By the time these terminals had been built, many of the markets for them would have been gone already.
We just need to make sure developing nations in Africa do not bother with fossil fuel infrastructure. There’s a lot of noise there, and decision-makers seem to be unsure what is true.
This is a mish mosh of "green" opinions and a recommendation at the end ("..Africa do not bother with fossil fuel infrastructure") so tone deaf to energy poverty in the third world as to be stunning. Written by a California based activist with no expertise in energy, environment, or economics.
Well done.
Germany is in fact the leader in European green energy which is why its economy is imploding.
Don't confuse yourself. "The economy" is imploding — and going to get worse — because human civilization is in a state of extreme ecological overshoot, and the natural foundations of "the economy" are now crumbling from its weight.
Moving to renewables is simply an intelligent acknowledgement of that fact... not the cause of it.
The global financial system requires growth to sustain itself. Without efficient energy systems, there will either be a deflationary depression or, more likely, a period of socially destructive inflation. A shift to renewables, which are inefficient from an EROEI point of view, will cause this. Gail the Actuary (Our Finite World) has written extensively about this.
I’m afraid you are the one who is confused …
🫤
Nope — you are still missing the point. Collapse is the inevitable result of ecological overshoot, and human civilization has been in a state of ecological overshoot for AT LEAST 50-100 years.
THAT is the primary driver of collapse, today, and — as a result — our current economic and finance systems SHALL fail in the very near future.
The question is, "what should we do about it?"
There are only two options:
1. Proactive contraction of human and economic activities (i.e. #degrowth)
=or=
2. Uncontrolled collapse.
THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION.
(1) would require replacement of today's economic systems, systems of finance, and societal modalities — but holds the possibility of preservation of some of the positives of advanced human civilization.
(2) results in a total loss of everything, in almost the same time-frame.
Since you like Gail T. — who is not some ultimate authority, btw — you might be interested to know that, when I gave a more detailed version of these observations, in response to one of her articles, she replied that — yes (I was correct) — that it would be best to crash the whole (current) system, in order to rapidly cut fossil fuels — since that is the only potential way to avoid total annihilation of human civilization.
--
Guess what — there is no unlimited growth on a planet with limited bio-physical resources.
And we've over-polluted, over-built, and over-extracted for long enough that global ecosystems are now spiraling on the verge of total collapse.
--
Fantasize if you want, but do it in your own space — these are the realities.
Oh I see where you are coming from. Continuing a long tradition of predicting the end of the world. You may be underestimating human ingenuity and creativity. And technological progress and innovation.
Oh. I see where you are coming from. Continuing a long tradition of disinformation trolls.
You may be underestimating the fact that the natural world has begun to collapse — and as a spoiled child at the top of privilege during the era of peak prosperity — the fact that sometimes, when things run out, they are gone.
That's where we are, esé,
You are welcome to explain this. I don’t know how this energy transition could be bad for an economy
The world burns more coal today than ever. Yes, there has been a transition in the US, but not on a global basis. All those solar panels are made in China, where silica is produced by -- you guessed it -- burning coal for industrial heat. Perhaps you might take a look at Doomberg on Substack. Or read Vaclav Smil, who knows more about these topics than you or I ever will ...
As renewables become the dominant source of power for the grid, the cost of electricity goes up. This is not supposition. If you look at the actual cost of electricity by country relative to renewable penetration, there is near perfect correlation. Germany is now uncompetitive in many industrial activities, which is why the industrial part of the economy is shrinking. Ultimately this will result in a declining standard of living, social unrest, etc.
While renewables generally pencil out as competitive using approaches such as Levelized Cost of Energy models, their intermittency characteristics raise the cost when accounting for energy storage and transmission. In short, the energetics of renewables are vastly inferior to fossil fuels.
Think of water reservoirs. In order to ensure that water comes out of the tap every time you turn it on, you need a reservoir which can withstand prolonged periods of drought. Most metropolitan areas declare a water emergency when reservoirs fall below 60% of capacity. Put this in renewable terms, and you need energy storage that is multiples of peak demand.
One final point: there has never, in the history of the world, been an “energy transition”. This is a “Big Lie”. New sources of energy are additive to legacy sources.
Seems like it's gas prices from the war in Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/german-inflation-rises-unexpectedly-after-fall-russian-gas-supply-2022-07-28/
... which is why Europe needs LNG!
"Most metropolitan areas declare a water emergency when reservoirs fall below 60% of capacity", because rainfall is far more intermittent then worst case renewables. And storage costs are starting to plummet just as renewables have.
This supports the idea that we are in an energy transition:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184333/coal-energy-consumption-in-the-us/
"renewable energy sources considerably reduced electricity prices by between 2.89 ct/kWh in 2014 to 8.89 ct/kWh in 2017. This allowed German end-consumers to save a total of 40 billion € from 2014 to 2018."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032120305955
As I said earlier, I think the DC "sit in" about CP2 should morph into a "Thank You Biden" demonstration!
I love this report: "The New York State Legislature is about to consider Senate Bill 278A/Assembly Bill 1559A, introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember JoAnne Simon and co-sponsored by elected representatives from across our diverse state. Adapted from an earlier version of the bill, the current bill has been drafted by an intergenerational and geographically diverse committee of high school students, teachers, parents, professors, and other educational professionals from Buffalo to the Adirondacks, and down to New York City: truly a state-wide effort." I hope that Vermont will draft a similar bill.
Thank you for all you do, Bill!
Nikki Haley: “We will get the EPA out of the way,” she said at the Jan. 3 event. “We will speed up the permitting process, we’ll get our pipelines going, we’ll do the Keystone pipeline, we’ll export as much liquefied natural gas as we can.”
How sad that that the citizens of Dumbfuckistan don’t realize that their party’s policies are going to destroy the environment that everything depends on to stay alive.
So now we have won the top down (policy). Next is the bottom up: fight greenwashing and lobbying by exposing it and speaking up.
Both Plaquemines and Calcasieu Pass are FULLY BUILT and ALREADY PERMITTED but not yet shipping LNG because of "mechanical unreliability." They will both begin shipments at the earliest in 2026. This means that Biden could refuse to grant another LNG permit and we could still expand LNG basically to critical market saturation. There's no real market for LNG beyond what's already built and permitted; this move allows Biden to score political points while not crossing his dear friends in the LNG business.
Great!!!
I sent a "thank you" to President Biden!
I’m not giving Rex Tillerson any brownie points. He and Trump are birds of a feather: Sociopathic selfish egomaniacs.
It is pretty amazing that the policies used to figure out if "[LNG exports]" are in the “public interest” have not already been "updated to include modern economics and science." Who would want less? I fear, however, that opponents of the project want far more, total blockage of this (and similar) projects.
My supposition is that a competent updating would result in the projects being approved if only climate change considerations are (only now?) being taken into consideration. The miniscule impact non-approval of this project will have on international gas prices and hence the minimal impact it will have of reducing natural gas use means its approval will have a minimal impact on CO2 emissions.
Maybe Biden’s Willow decision was less a dumb choice and more of a head fake.
I would like to. present something I think is new and valuable (and I didn't think of it) to add to the solving the climate change conversation. I honor your conversation that so many are tapped into and think you are a brilliant, caring, courageous human being, Bill McKibben.
I have been in the movement that Peter Fiekowsky is leading to create called Climate Restoration. This mean removing vast amounts of excess CO2 and methane (primarily) from the atmosphere. The excess GHG's in the atmosphere are what is causing the warming. Yes, we put them there and we need to stop. We now really have no choice but to also deal with what is already warming us that is already up there, however. It's mostly CO2 and it doesn't break down for hundreds of years up to as long as 1000 years.
Scientists have been thinking about this "other" issue besides the very real issue of excess emissions. The earth has warmed enough that tipping points have been breached and the feed back loops are now feeding CO2 and methane into the atmosphere in addition to what humans are emitting. What may be possible: Removing the excess 40% of GHG'S in the atmosphere could slow down the increasing climate disasters relatively quickly. Removing the excess GHG's could cool the earth enough that instead of paying for disaster relief, we could be incentivizing the shift to electrification and use of solar, wind, geothermal and other noncarbon sources of energy. It takes time to rid ourselves of fossil fuels and make the switch to safer energy for humans and all of life on earth. I am hoping that you, Bill McKibbens, will take on promoting Carbon Dioxide Removal and Methane Oxidation that will change methane to CO2 that is less heating and easier to remove. I hope you will look into the existing projects that may be able to do this at scale and affordably. They need more tests on a larger scale to find out if they are free of unintended, unacceptable consequences. You and your readers can go to peterfiekowsky.com or to F4CR.org for more details.
This type of thinking gives me hope that we can save ourselves in time, that we can turn the clock back on climate change and reverse it in many ways. There are things set in motion, like sea level rise, that we may not be able to reverse but if we get moving we can minimize. There will still need to be lots of ecosystem restoration. Certainly we need to finish the transition to non-carbon energy, and solar is the cheapest source of energy now, so it should happen. Climate Restoration could give us a little more time to get that done. It feels like we need a magic switch to do this instantly to be "soon enough." Perhaps what we need is the slow down of climate disasters that Climate Restoration just might be able to deliver.
"The pledge to 'transition away from fossil fuels' that John Kerry and the rest of the world’s governments signed in Dubai was given actual meaning by Biden’s move."
Was it? I'll believe we're "transitioning away from fossil fuels" when I see a timeline for dismantling fossil fuel infrastructure.
I’m seeing more and more wins from the greater public. That said, I have no doubt the BIG Oil is the proverbial dying beast who’s become more dangerous exponentially.. with each passing day. I feel torn between pain and determination that life affirming change is happening. That it will pick up speed. I’m like a country divided between the enI’m seeing more and more wins from the greater public. That said, I have no doubt the BIG Oil is the proverbial dying beast who’s become more dangerous exponentially.. with each passing day. I feel torn between pain and determination that life affirming change is happening. That it will pick up speed. I’m like a country divided between the energy of my intentions and hearing the words of the poet, Dylan Thomas. Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rave at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Bill: Have you seen the Vox analysis of the Biden pause? https://www.vox.com/climate/24055711/lng-export-pause-biden-liquefied-natural-gas-climate-change They note that the non-FTA limitation on the pause is a serious loophole. Maybe we should only pause the protests, not cancel them. D*mn.
Some useful warnings in that article before we rest too long on our laurels.
I have to say, however, that Vox really blew it on the climate analysis part of its piece ("Is LNG at least better for the climate?... If it replaces coal, then in general, yes"). It leads without challenge with two LNG industry assessments claiming that LNG has a smaller footprint than coal. The lead author of both studies is Selina A. Roman-White who works for Cheniere Energy, https://www.linkedin.com/in/selina-roman-white-147711167/ Cheniere claims to be the biggest LNG producer in the US and 2nd largest global LNG operator https://www.cheniere.com/ She previously worked for KeyLogic a consultant to big defense and energy industry players with government contracts.
No mention of the Howarth study.
Vox does later mention "environmental activists" concerns over leakage (as if it is only activists raising that alarm - how about NOAA?) and does cite one UK study that found LNG was 4X worse than local gas. Then makes the contradictory statement: "some LNG exports will simply fill in existing gas needs, as they do in parts of Europe, so the climate impact overall is at best a wash, though likely worse than more locally produced gas." Huh? A wash or 4X worse? Quite a difference between those two scenarios.
I agree that all things to reduce use of fossil fuels should be done. In ENEnergy we plan to make all fossil liquids plus coal redundant. Read more about us on www.enenergy.net
Biden's pause on new LNG export terminal licenses is a great step, in the sense of the precedent it sets — and (of course) Donald Trump cannot be allowed to assume the presidency — BUT.... aside from its precedent, this move amounts to very little, for the following reasons:
1. It is temporary — it basically asks for review before new export terminal licenses can be granted. (This could easily go the way of Barack Obama's election campaign promised to halt mountain-top-removal mining — after an almost non-existent review process, all but one project were green-lighted.)
2. It is extremely limited — it applies only to ***NEW*** ***EXPORT*** terminal licenses.
3. The "climate test" McKibben mentions doesn't actually exist, yet, except as a brief and vague concept — it has not been expressed in concrete language, and tested in practice... or in the courts.
4. The proverbial "horse" may be already largely "out of the barn" — the Biden administration has been approving new LNG export applications at record rates (e.g. US LNG project approvals on track for record new volumes | Reuters — https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-project-approvals-track-record-new-volumes-2023-06-23/ — and — Summary of LNG Export Applications of the Lower 48 States | Department of Energy — https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/summary-lng-export-applications-lower-48-states). For all we know, fossil fuel companies will be perfectly happy to work on the projects that have already been approved, for the time-being.
———
As for comparisons with the FY2022 "Inflation Reduction Act, " it should be clear, now, that it did more to prolong the use of fossil fuels than to meet emissions-reductions targets.
I agree with this statement, seen recently in a comment in another group, by Juan Spumoni — "The IRA does almost nothing to reduce GHG emissions and $389 Billion will do nothing to change a $25 Trillion economy based on 80% Fossil Fuel Consumption. The numbers just don't add up. It is about 0.15% of what would be necessary, A simple linear regression between energy production and GDP has a correlation coefficient of 0.997.You cannot run a $25 Trillion economy based on 80% Fossil Fuel use and expect 0.15% of GDP investment per year into Climate Stability to accomplish anything."
This article spells out the Biden administration's general posture toward fossil fuels — 'Spectacular Failure of Climate Leadership': Biden Outpaces Trump on Oil and Gas Permits — https://www.commondreams.org/news/biden-trump-drilling-public-lands
For more on that, here are my somewhat lengthy notes about the FY 2022 IRA, from back in 2022 — Characterizing Effective Action (and the FY2022IRA) — https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkuX2yjLlNEwzN8yE4iVKEkqqqkIOorV/edit
———
Might not get too overconfident about what this really means. Could be nothing more than an election year political ploy to keep regressive "environmentalists" on side through November.
The former Senator from Dupont understands how to play this game all too well.