geoff: The Biden administration
is hitting pause on new projects
involving the export of an
important source of global
energy, natural gas.
While the U.S. Is currently the
largest exporter of natural gas
in the world, the white house
argues the climate effects of
these projects are too great to
ignore.
William brangham breaks down
what this is all about.
William: Geoff, the Biden
administration will not approve,
or even consider any new
terminals that export liquified
natural gas, or lng, until it
completes a thorough review of
their climate and national
security implications.
Industry groups criticized the
decision, while
environmentalists hailed what
they saw as a key victory in
trying to reduce the fossil
fuels that are driving climate
change.
Coral Davenport covers energy
and environmental policy for the
New York Times.
Good to have you back on the
program.
What are the broader
implications of this pause?
Natural gas is not going to go
away.
We still all use it every single
day.
But especially for the markets
where there is such demand for
it, given the war in Ukraine,
what are the impacts of this?
Coral: This decision comes as
the U.S. Is the largest natural
gas exporter in the world and
still has more of these
terminals under construction.
U.S. Natural gas exports are
projected to double over the
next four years given all the
natural gas export terminals
already being built even with
this pause.
That takes you up to about four
years out.
That means the U.S. Is actually
dominating the natural gas
export market.
But you have these 17 terminals
waiting approval.
These are the ones that will be
paused.
This really is a very
significant shift.
The white house has not said
that they will be denied, but
they are really raising the
environmental bar of what it
takes.
The U.S. Government has never
denied a permit to build one of
these natural gas export
facilities.
Now they are saying we are going
to take climate impact of these
into account and if they use a
new methodology that finds the
climate impact of one of these
is too great to approve it, that
absolutely could have a
long-term systemic effect.
Maybe not meeting zero are ever
built, but beyond five years
out, this could be something
that we do not see new
construction of very much at all
anymore.
So it is a big deal.
William: The industry, as you
have reported, is
serious about this.
They say it will cost jobs, it
will drive up costs.
They also call this a win for
Russia.
Tell us more about their
argument.
Coral: Their argument is
particularly that the U.S. Has
successfully used its ability as
a natural gas exporter to, for
example, weaken the power that
Vladimir Putin has, that Russia
has in cutting off natural gas
supplies to Europe.
The U.S. Has been able to
redirect its own natural gas,
supplies to send it to our
allies in Europe, to weaken th
E influence of Russia.
That is very powerful.
That is sort of the big
geopolitical argument.
That said, again, the
glut of natural gas
exports is only growing.
So it really kind of depends on
what the market looks like
beyond five years.
And there are some analysts who
say we are already reaching a
place where these natural gas
exports are a glut, where there
is so much production, there is
not enough demand.
That said, we don't know what
markets are going to look like
in the future.
The big growth in demand will be
in Asia.
If in the long run the U.S. Is
not supplying that growth in
Asia, what does that mean for
long-term geopolitical
questions?
We don't have answers to those.
William: The environmental
community, as you know and have
reported, is thrilled about
this.
They are surprised in some way
at how fast the Biden
administration.
Moved.
Does this meaningfully achieve
the goals they are all searching
for, which is a reduction in
emissions?
Meaning, will this have a net
impact on our climate emissions?
Coral: Climate emissions are
global and they are caused --
there are so many forces that
influence emission.
Ultimately economists will tell
you the thing that reduces
emissions is reduction and
demand.
Fewer people driving gasoline
powered cars, fewer people using
fossil fuels for electricity.
There needs to be sort of a
global shift.
So, will this one specific
action change that?
No.
But it does seem like it has
really created a big shift in
this one piece of the U.S.
Fossil fuel picture.
I would say that we have seen
big fights from the
environmental groups, that
climate activist community over
the last 10 years, over the
willow project, which was a big
oil project in Alaska.
They tried to get Biden to turn
that down, he did not.
Keystone pipeline, they had a
victory in stopping one single
oil pipeline.
This is much bigger than those,
because this is not one
individual project.
This is a systemic change.
This is a turning of the tide in
a really significant way.
They got a big win.
William: How much of this was
about politics?
Coral: This was an explicitly
political campaign.
Climate activists were very
disappointed in president Biden
for proceeding with the willow
oil drilling project in Alaska
last year.
They felt that a lot of young
voters, not necessarily would
vote for Donald Trump, but would
stay home and not work to get
out the vote.
The explicitly found this issue
and found this project, these
gas export terminals, and said
we want to elevate this on
social media, and we want to
bring it to the president's
front door, and we will punish
or reward him, their words,
based on what he does here.
He gave them what they wanted
and they are now preparing to go
to swing states and use this as
a moment to to turn out young
voters, who are of course the
largest voting demographic,
hoping to bring out a couple
more young voters and swing
states specifically in response
to this decision.
Willia coral Davenport of the
New York Times, thank you so
much.
Coral: Great to be here.
♪♪