Does Trump Actually Want To Lower Energy Costs? Or Does He Want A Bigger Payout For His CEO Friends?
When you ask a question in a headline, the answer is no. Except that second one, whose answer is yes.
Even as Donald Trump prepares for the big January 20 auction where he’ll sell the future to the highest bidders on his first day in office, the Biden administration keeps refusing to climb on the corpse cart and insisting it’s not dead yet, just because “Constitution.” The latest example comes in the form of a much-anticipated report from the Department of Energy detailing the likely climate impacts of future US exports of liquified “natural” gas (LNG), which Biden requested in January when he announced a pause in approvals of new LNG export terminals. Climate activists had demanded we stop exporting methane gas because it is a “climate bomb” that will wipe out much of the tiny progress the world has made in slowing the rate at which we’re loading up the atmosphere with planet-warming greenhouse gases.
Trump will no doubt go ahead with his plan to end Biden’s pause on new LNG export terminals, which was already held up by a lawsuit in July, but the contents of the report may at least slow his roll a little bit. Trump had promised he would start approving new LNG export projects on day one, when he’ll be a dictator you know. Not surprisingly, the report finds that increasing LNG exports beyond already-authorized production would be terrible for climate, adding greenhouse emissions equal to 1.5 gigatons of CO2 by 2050, about a quarter of current US emissions.
But another finding may be a bigger setback for Trump’s plans: If the US increases gas exports that much, it will have the effect of driving US prices for fossil gas much higher, because that gas won’t be available for domestic use, resulting in higher gas and electricity costs since so much US electricity is generated by gas.
And that kind of defeats Trump’s goal of making energy cheaper for US consumers by producing more and more fossil fuels (if that is his actual goal — facts, as they say, not in evidence). The findings could be used in lawsuits opposing Trump’s energy strategy overall, and to fight approvals of individual new export facilities.
Heatmap News explains the report’s chief findings, none of which are terrific news for supporters of vastly expanded LNG exports:
Projects already approved before Biden’s pause are expected to meet or exceed gas demand around the world. Isn’t that great? No need for more! The LNG export plants that are under construction now will almost double US exports by 2030; that total could double again if facilities that have been approved, but not yet funded by investors, actually get built.
Demand is already slowing for US LNG exports in Europe and Japan, and South Korea’s demand is also projected to peak and flatten by 2030, so why the hell would we want to build more export capacity than our trading partners want?
Yes, even more LNG terminals mean construction and operational jobs (if the demand is there), but ramped up exports may raise domestic fossil gas prices by 30 percent by 2050, making consumer uses and electricity that much pricier.
In all five export scenarios the study modeled, higher exports would result in greater greenhouse emissions ranging from hella bad to hella hella extra Jesus Christ bad.
As Politico reports, the report will likely give environmental groups “more ammunition to challenge approvals in court,” including some of the paused projects Trump wants to approve instantly. Lauren Parker, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, explained in an email to Politico,
The DOE will use the study to determine whether LNG exports are in the public interest, a legal requirement under the Natural Gas Act. […] This new study should bolster arguments that any public interest analysis is flawed if it doesn’t recommend denying LNG export licenses, because the harms from these exports clearly outweigh the benefits.
Or at least, that’s how it should play out under a normal Department of Energy, before Trump fills it with fossil fuel executives and lawyers; in any case, outside groups will have the report to use in filings opposing new export projects.
The findings about imports driving up domestic gas prices may also be ignored by the Trump crew, who will offer the scientific analysis that “nuh uh that won’t happen,” especially once it does. That will be supported by fossil fuel flacks yammering about “abundance” and “energy independence,” and also insisting that Europe must replace the gas it’s no longer getting from Russia after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, not that there was anything wrong with that. (And remember, the LNG export facilities already expected to come online by 2030 will more than meet Europe’s projected demand, and then some.)
And finally, in a post that you all ought to read, climate journalist and activist Bill McKibben argues that whatever Trump may do to ignore it, the DOE report is valuable for marking what ought to be the end of Democrats playing footsie with gas as a “respectable” fossil fuel, based on its lower carbon emissions than coal when it’s burned in power plants. That selling point has long outlived its usefulness, particularly since inevitable methane leaks from production and pipelines are great enough to cancel out the progress gained by switching from coal to gas. Producing and exporting more gas will simply make matters worse, since research shows that when you add in methane leaks from giant LNG tankers, you get far worse climate impacts than even coal exports (no this is not an argument in favor of coal).
There are no virtuous fossil fuels. But as we keep saying, renewables plus storage are already proving affordable enough that they can beat both coal and pricey LNG exports on price, which is good news for our hot sweaty planet.
[US Department of Energy / Politico / Heatmap News / The Crucial Years]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please become a paid subscriber, or you could also just say Frack It and make a one-time (or recurring!) donation here!
Or if you prefer, you can also use the Venmos to send us the venmost!
Hey folks, the rules for radicals still apply.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/rules-for-commenting-radicals
Sorry polar bears (and most other climate-endangered species).