First, it was your gas stove, then your water heater. Now, the Biden Administration has decided to halt the permitting process for multiple liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects, citing climate change concerns.
According to Fox News, federal officials plan to temporarily halt issuing new permits/licenses to conduct an environmental review of carbon emissions. This review could take over a year to complete. The moratorium has the potential to disrupt billions of dollars of projects and eliminate thousands of jobs.
Liquefied natural gas, commonly abbreviated as LNG, is created by cooling natural gas to approximately 260° Fahrenheit (-162 ° Celsius). This process transforms the gas into a liquid form, making it easier to store and transport globally on specially designed ships. When the LNG reaches its destination, it is reheated to convert back into gas, which is then distributed through pipelines to various consumers, including businesses, homes, and power plants.
Natural gas, an essential resource for heating and business operations, is extensively produced in the United States through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This technique has been instrumental in unlocking substantial natural gas reserves underground. The U.S. saw a significant increase in gas exports following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Biden administration has highlighted the strategic importance of U.S. gas exports to Europe and Asia, positioning it as a crucial tool in geopolitics. This strategy allows U.S. allies to diversify their energy sources, reducing their dependence on Russian gas, and is seen as a countermeasure against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s policies.
This latest move by Biden jeopardizes gas supply within the U.S. and overseas. American Exploration & Production Council CEO Anne Bradbury criticized the decision as detrimental to the U.S. economy and global emission reduction efforts. Bradbury believes this move will weaken the security of the U.S. and its allies.
Many see Biden’s alignment with environmentalists concerned about the significant increase in liquefied natural gas exports as an attempt to retain votes from the environmentalist bloc. Biden had pledged to reduce climate pollution by 50% before 2030. However, many environmentalists fear that the recent increase in exports could lead to potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions.
Critics argue that the decision reflects a broader anti-energy stance by climate activists. Despite warnings about environmental destruction, they seem to overlook the significant role of fossil fuels in reducing climate-related disaster deaths over the past century. Fossil fuels have been essential for heating, air conditioning, and supporting infrastructure and agriculture.
Republicans are raising concerns that the stringent stance against fossil fuels might lead to significant hardships, impacting basic human needs like home heating. This reflects a growing debate about the true intentions behind environmentalist policies. Climate policies could lead to broader social and economic impacts, such as food shortages and changes in dietary habits, driven by an agenda that goes beyond environmental concerns. The push against traditional farming practices in places like the Netherlands, coupled with advocacy against meat and dairy consumption, is seen as part of this agenda.
The influence of environmental policies on personal decisions, like family planning, is also notable. Many young people report hesitation to have children due to climate change concerns, influenced by public figures and studies. Critics also point to a potential shift towards a new economic model, away from the principles established since the Industrial Revolution. They argue that this shift could reduce the middle class and increase corporate-government partnerships, undermining private ownership and individual freedoms.
There are concerns that policies targeting aspects like gas stoves, meat consumption, and personal travel are more about controlling personal freedoms than reducing CO2 emissions. The end goal, as perceived by some, is a significant reduction in the global population, leaving those remaining more dependent on centralized government control. This perspective sees current trends potentially leading to a future where personal ownership is minimal and the populace is more vulnerable and reliant on government and corporate entities.