webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

LNG EXPORT

===

SEE ANGA SEE FRACK

see marathon, dictator}:

see ukraine was BS

now refers to exports in general, apparently key to trump's goal of world domination (and might explain wacko put down of germany merkel at G6

===

boosted during ukraine war ~ vlad

an 12 24

liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

  1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
  2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
  3. Mizuho (Japan)
  4. Gazprombank (Russia)
  5. SMBC Group (Japan)

6. Bank of America (U.S.)

  1. Citigroup (U.S.)
  2. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
  3. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
  4. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

  1. BlackRock
  2. Vanguard
  3. State Street
  4. Fidelity Investments
  5. Capital Group
  6. GPFG
  7. JP Morgan Chase
  8. Brookfield Asset Management
  9. Blackstone
  10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

===

an 12 24

liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

  1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
  2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
  3. Mizuho (Japan)
  4. Gazprombank (Russia)
  5. SMBC Group (Japan)

6. Bank of America (U.S.)

  1. Citigroup (U.S.)
  2. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
  3. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
  4. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

  1. BlackRock
  2. Vanguard
  3. State Street
  4. Fidelity Investments
  5. Capital Group
  6. GPFG
  7. JP Morgan Chase
  8. Brookfield Asset Management
  9. Blackstone
  10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

===

---

gmail 3 24

fox no lnx

Texas and 15 states sue Biden admin over climate agenda targeting gas projects

'I will not stand by while Biden attacks Texas,' Attorney General Ken Paxton says

Thomas Catenacci By Thomas Catenacci Fox News

Published March 22, 2024

Facebook

Twitter

Flipboard

Comments

Print

Email

Biden's halting of liquified natural gas projects is 'utter nonsense': Marc Morano

Climatedepot.com Executive Director Marc Morano discusses the impact on American energy from the Biden administration's halt of liquified natural gas projects and reacts to Davos saying that drinking coffee causes climate change.

A coalition of 16 Republican states, led by Texas and Louisiana, filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, challenging its recent climate action pausing proposed energy projects.

The multistate coalition filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, listing President Biden, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and the Department of Energy (DOE) among the defendants in the case. According to the complaint, the DOE's move earlier this year pausing major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects violated long-standing federal energy laws.

"Biden’s unilateral decree disregards statutory mandates, flouts the legal process, upends the oil and gas industry, disrupts the Texas economy, and subverts our constitutional structure," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

"The ban will drive billions of dollars in investment away from Texas, hinder our ability to maximize revenue for public schools, force Texas producers to flare excess natural gas instead of taking it to market, and annihilate critical jobs," he continued. "I will not stand by while Biden attacks Texas."

GOP LEADERS CONFRONT BIDEN’S NEW CLIMATE CZAR ON KEY SECURITY RISKS LURKING IN GREEN AGENDA

Ken Paxton in front of Supreme Court

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 1, 2021. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

According to Paxton, the LNG export moratorium is unconstitutional, ignores the 1938 Natural Gas Act’s "presumption in favor of exports" and discards decades of DOE energy policy.

In arguing the alleged unconstitutionality of the policy, the states' complaint notes Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with "[a]ll legislative Powers," including the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Therefore, since blocking LNG exports can be considered a regulation of commerce, the DOE violated the Constitution, according to the lawsuit.

TIKTOK ACTIVIST SAYS HE ADVISED WHITE HOUSE ON BIDEN'S NEW NATURAL GAS MORATORIUM

"The LNG Export Ban implicates an issue of profound national importance. LNG exports account for billions of dollars to the economy and thousands of jobs," the complaint states. "They also raise serious questions of national security. And this is an issue that has been the subject of proposed legislation and public attention in and outside of Congress."

President Biden ordered pending natural gas export projects to be halted in a stunning move in January. (Getty Images)

The complaint accuses DOE of violating the Administrative Procedure Act which governs the procedures of administrative law. The states highlight that DOE failed to host any public comment period before finalizing its LNG policy without "good cause to forego the notice and comment requirement."

Additionally, the states argue the DOE failed to properly consider the Natural Gas Act and its provision that states the agency issue an export license before hearing from the public.

DOZENS OF FORMER TOP FEDERAL OFFICIALS CALL ON CONGRESS TO STRIKE DOWN BIDEN'S NATURAL GAS CRACKDOWN

"The Biden administration’s illegal attacks on American energy jeopardizes the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working Louisiana men and women, millions of dollars in tax revenue, and billions of dollars in infrastructure," said Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.

"LNG continues to have an enormous positive economic impact for our state — especially on our hard-hit coastal communities, which continue to recover from a recent series of devastating hurricanes. Jobs like these grow the economy, reduce crime, and help address the out-migration problem," she continued. "The people of Louisiana are proud to power this nation. I’m ready to fight for them."

An LNG tanker is pictured at the Elbehafen port in Brunsbuettel, Germany. American LNG has been critical in helping Germany and other European nations wean off Russian gas. (Bodo Marks/picture alliance via Getty Images)

In a surprise move in January, Biden ordered the DOE to pause pending permits for LNG export facilities while federal officials conduct a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects' carbon emissions, which could take more than a year to complete. The action was lauded by climate activists who have loudly called for such a move, which they said would help combat global warming.

However, the move was blasted by industry groups, former federal officials and bipartisan lawmakers, who noted energy exports are vital for aiding allies in Europe and Asia. In the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine two years ago, U.S. LNG largely filled the void left by Russian natural gas as U.S. allies sought to wean off Russian exports and punish the nation's economy, a plan Biden endorsed at the time.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Opponents also argued that LNG exports bolster domestic energy production and boost the U.S. economy. Fossil fuel industry groups recently cited research indicating that LNG exports could add as much as $73 billion to the U.S. economy by 2040, create 453,000 American jobs and increase U.S. purchasing power by $30 billion.

Thomas Catenacci is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

===

Fox can’t stop pushing this falsehood about Biden’s liquefied natural gas policy

Fox hosts are mischaracterizing the new policy as win for Putin, as the two-year anniversary of Russia's invasion approaches

Special PROGRAMSCLIMATE & ENERGY

WRITTEN BY ILANA BERGER

PUBLISHED 02/23/24

Fox News continues to make misleading statements about President Joe Biden’s commitment to providing liquefied natural gas exports to Europe, which has sought to move away from relying on Russian energy since the country invaded Ukraine in 2022.

On January 26, the White House announced it would be reviewing the process it uses to evaluate whether new LNG export facilities are in the public interest, “with the exception of unanticipated and immediate national security emergencies.” In the years since this process was last updated, scientists have published important new research concerning the likely underestimated health and environmental impacts of methane pollution. Now, the Department of Energy is set to pause approvals for some new facilities that are pending while it reconsiders how the construction would drive climate change.

Importantly, this decision will not restrict gas supplies to Europe. Several new export facilities have already been approved or are under construction, and those projects will not be affected by the recent announcement. But that hasn’t stopped Fox personalities from claiming that Biden’s decision is akin to abandoning our European allies to the benefit of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

During a February 22 interviewwith Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Fox News anchor Bret Baier claimed that the Biden administration is “stopping the selling of liquid natural gas, which means that Russia may actually start selling liquid natural gas to Europe again. Do you have a problem with that?” Zelensky replied that European countries are “becoming independent from the energy standpoint.”

Baier pushed back, telling Zelensky that while the Biden administration is “trying to support you [and] push back on Russia, at the same time, in essence, by a climate change rule, they are supporting Russia to get more money.”

Video file

CitationFrom the February 22, 2024, edition of Fox News' Special Report

Speaking with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in a February 21 segment of America’s Newsroom, Fox anchor Dana Perino referenced the “fallout from President Biden's decision to end all LNG permitting,” suggesting the announcement would undermine U.S. aid to Ukraine and strengthen Russia’s position.

Perino then questioned Ambassador Bridget Brink whether she would “ask the Biden administration to reverse that LNG permitting decision.” After Brink correctly pointed out that “we've been increasing our LNG exports for quite a while now,” Perino again insisted that “the president just ended all of the new permits,” even though he did no such thing.

Video file

CitationFrom the February 21, 2024, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom

“The president canceled all new natural gas contracts,”Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed in a February 16 segment. “And when you stop the contracts on natural gas, that’s got to get our allies who are right in what would be the battlefront nervous.”

This statement, too, is completely false. The U.S. is still the world’s largest liquefied natural gas supplier, exporting LNG to Europe and Asia at record levels in 2023. And as Business Insider notes, our export capacity is set to nearly double by 2028, “when at least five more terminals could be online. The expansion isn't impacted by the White House's pause, which only applies to terminals that haven't received federal approval yet.”

//

The fossil fuel industry and right-wing media are losing their minds over Biden's decision to pause part of a dangerous LNG buildout

02/02/24 1:54 PM EST

  1. ### CNN's Jim Acosta hosts frontline community activist to discuss climate justice implications of Biden's decision to pause LNG export permits

02/01/24 4:07 PM EST

  1. ### “That's finished now”: Fox Business hosts incorrectly suggest the US is no longer exporting liquefied natural gas to allies

02/09/24

---

---

The fossil fuel industry and right-wing media are losing their minds over Biden's decision to pause part of a dangerous LNG buildout}:

BIDEN CLAMPS DOWN BUNCH ALREADY APPROVED? CANCER ALLEY STY CHLS PARISH NEXT CLOSE TO CHEM PLASTIC?

mma 2 24

Right-wing media presented the meetings as evidence that the administration was letting TikTok set its policy agenda. But by law, the Department of Energy must ensure that gas exports destined for countries without U.S. free trade agreements are in “the public interest” before it authorizes new facilities. In reality, Biden’s so-called concession to activists was anything but radical.

IN THIS ARTICLE

](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-business)

](https://www.mediamatters.org/wall-street-journal)

Related

  1. ### Right-wing media figures become gas stove devotees after health concerns arise

01/12/23 2:55 PM EST

  1. ### Myths And Facts About Natural Gas

06/21/12 9:31 AM EDT

  1. ### WSJ, Pushing For Natural Gas, Debunked By Natural Gas Industry

03/25/14 12:58 PM EDT

==

aha wow omg:

cfg big lobbyist on climate vs CoC? enforcer drives polarization, RINO hunters

Climate science skeptics grasp for power in changing GOP

Nick Sobczyk, E&E News reporter

Published: Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Skeptics of mainstream climate science and hard-line conservatives think they still have a hold on the GOP, despite a recent rhetorical evolution among congressional Republicans.

Climate science skeptics grasp for power in changing GOP

MARCH 10, 2020

As originally published in E&E News.

By: Nick Sobczyk

March 10, 2020

Skeptics of mainstream climate science and hard-line conservatives think they still have a hold on the GOP, despite a recent rhetorical evolution among congressional Republicans.

It’s part of a battle for the soul of the party between hard-right organizations, such as the Club for Growth, and the newfangled and well-funded ecosystem of conservative clean energy groups, led most prominently by ClearPath and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.

There are abundant signs on Capitol Hill that people who question climate science are losing clout with Republicans. But they are insistent that not much has changed, particularly with President Trump still in the White House.

“I don’t think we’re losing much ground,” said Myron Ebell, a prominent energy advocate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a longtime opponent of the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Ebell helped lead Trump’s EPA transition team.

“I do think that there’s been more hand waving,” he added, “but I don’t think Republican voters have been influenced very much by the hand waving and the shouting.”

Party leadership on Capitol Hill would beg to differ. And even some Trump-loyal Republicans are happy to distance themselves from the climate science denial movement, even if they’re not willing to offer the kind of policies many experts say will be necessary to reduce the use of fossil fuels — the primary driver of climate change.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and his top energy deputies rolled out a package of small-ball climate change bills last month, pointing to polls that show younger voters increasingly worried about the issue.

None would reduce fossil fuel use, but they would aim to reduce emissions through carbon capture and sequestration (Greenwire, Feb. 12).

Meanwhile, Republicans on powerful committees such as Energy and Commerce have largely dropped outright climate denial for the kind of “energy innovation” talking points favored by CRES and ClearPath.

“Both sides now recognize climate is changing, temperature is increasing we need to do something about it,” said Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.). “We’re just speaking out and making our own views known better, and there is more evidence.”

Policywise, what they’re doing is phenomenal and unbelievable and beyond anything we could have hoped. It truly is.

Marc Morano, director of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow]

The fact remains, however, that the Republican president frequently denies climate change and for a time employed a man — William Happer — tasked with performing a critical review of federal climate science.

For skeptics and libertarian ideologues alike who want to see the federal regulatory regime torn down, that’s an important audience.

“Policywise, what Andrew Wheeler is doing is phenomenal. Policywise, what Donald Trump is doing is phenomenal,” said Marc Morano, director of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, who has questioned climate science for years.

“Policywise, what they’re doing is phenomenal and unbelievable and beyond anything we could have hoped,” he said. “It truly is.”

Fighting over the details

There’s no meaningful debate among climate scientists about whether temperatures are rising because of man’s industrial activity.

A host of peer-reviewed studies warn of potentially catastrophic economic and environmental effects, many of which are readily apparent today, without dramatic changes to global greenhouse gas emissions. Most objections to the science have virtually zero credibility in the world’s scientific community.

Still, politically, Ebell doesn’t think it’s useful for conservatives to cede the debate because he said McCarthy’s efforts won’t convince voters who want the federal government to address climate change to vote Republican.

“If local environmental groups or local media in their districts start looking into these bills and start giving them publicity in the local media, they’re going to have a hard time explaining themselves because we’ve conceded that global warming’s a problem, and we’ve got a plan which will do nothing to address it,” Ebell said.

“So I think it’s not a well-thought-out way to proceed on this issue, and I doubt that they’re going to get very much positive spin out of it with voters,” he said.

Prominent conservative organizations, meanwhile, are making similar arguments with more subtle references to the science of climate change.

After McCarthy, Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves and other Republicans came out with their package of bills last month, the Club for Growth promptly blasted it, threatening to withhold endorsements from supporters.

“When you give an inch on principle, you concede a negotiating posture that has also led to devastating bipartisan agreements on bailouts, spending and regulation,” Scott Parkinson, vice president of government affairs for the Club for Growth, wrote in a subsequent letter to the editor in The Washington Post last month.

“Club for Growth will continue to work with principled conservatives who reject climate alarmism and fight for energy and environmental policies based on sound economic principles,” he wrote.

Despite those disagreements, the Republican efforts on climate aren’t actually all that new, and they’re generally more focused on repackaging GOP-backed policies through a climate change lens.

One of the bills they rolled out last month, for instance, would make permanent the 45Q tax break for carbon capture and sequestration, which a Republican-led Congress expanded in 2018.

Graves, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis’ ranking member, is also leading a letter to National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, to be sent in the coming weeks, urging the White House to promote fossil fuel exports as a way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Top Republicans, including Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, are expected to sign.

The Trump administration, of course, is already gung-ho about exporting fossil fuels, but Republicans argue that it can help the fight against climate change because U.S. exports have lower life-cycle emissions than sources in the developing world.

The current backdrop, however, is that U.S. emissions are increasing, undermining Republicans who point to emissions reductions during the last 15 years. EPA’s most recent numbers found that greenhouse gas emissions rose 3.1% in 2018 — during Trump’s second year in office — despite the continued decline of coal (Climatewire, Feb. 13).

Meanwhile, the party as a whole still roundly rejects carbon pricing and regulations, tools that most climate experts say will be necessary to deploy clean energy technology to the market and reduce emissions fast enough to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

“Looking back over the last several years there have been policies that are entirely consistent with Republican ideology that we can continue doing that achieve multiple goals,” Graves said. “My whole thing is let’s not sit here and fight over the details of the science.”

Constituent services?

Ebell and other skeptics dismiss conservative clean energy groups as empty vessels with money but no loyal supporters, but they’re having an impact.

CRES alone spent nearly $500,000 lobbying on various energy issues in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to disclosure forms, including with several outside lobbying firms.

Much of the lobbying effort went toward getting clean energy priorities into the tax extenders package at the end of last year, according to CRES Executive Director Heather Reams, but CRES and ClearPath were enthusiastic about Republicans adopting their rhetoric in early 2020.

Still, Reams said she doesn’t see her group’s efforts as in direct conflict with those who question climate science. Rather, she believes she offers Republicans who want to talk about climate change a supportive landing pad.

“They’re responding to voters,” Reams said. “So I think it’s a very unfair position that some groups are putting Republican members in. These are complex problems and deserve complex solutions, and keeping your head in the sand is not a solution.”

And in a sign that the climate skeptic wing’s influence could be petering out, the Heartland Institute — a conservative think tank that has long dispersed debunked theories about climate change — laid off some of its staff last week amid reported financial woes (Greenwire, March 9).

Efforts to promote carbon taxes as a conservative solution to climate change have been less successful so far, however, showing the limits of the Republican transformation. Currently, the policy has only a small constituency.

Read the rest of the article here....e&e

---

https://www.exposedbycmd.org**/2021/07/**27/alecs-pr-man-has-a-dark-past-as-spin-doctor-for-african-dictators/

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has a history of defending controversial and harmful legislation, but the man behind ALEC’s public relations machine, Bill Meierling, has defended actions far worse than anything done by ALEC.

Two of Africa’s most notorious dictators hired Meierling to downplay their abuses of power and build political support for their authoritarian regimes: Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Democratic Republic of Congo’s Joseph Kabila.

Meierling helped set up the information ministry of Equatorial Guinea for the country’s tyrant, Obiang, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo he advocated for Joseph Kabila’s illegal attempt at a third term as president.

A “former member of ALEC who grew disillusioned with the organization” sourced the materials for this story to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which were confirmed through Foreign Agent Registration Act filings. Anyone representing the interests of a foreign government has to register as a lobbyist and disclose their activities.

Meierling officially joined ALEC in January 2013as executive vice president for external relations and strategic partnerships. As head of the group’s spin machine, he has since retained that role and become the chief marketing officer. Meierling “manages crisis response and provides senior level counsel to investor-, government-, and public relations divisions of Fortune 500 member companies regarding state and federal advocacy; environmental, social and governance (ESG) activism; and other concerns.”

In Meierling, ALEC found an experienced propagandist who led the organization through a donor crisis and member exodus when its promotion of “Stand Your Ground” legislation was tied to the death of the unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. He managed PR when Google’s executive chairman said ALEC was “literally lying” about the climate emergency, and when corporations again dropped ALEC for its keynote speaker David Horowitz’s racist and bigoted remarks at a 2018 annual meeting.

Meierling Assisted in Equatorial Guinea Propaganda Campaign

Before joining ALEC, Meierling ran his own PR firm, OpinionMakers International. Through OpinionMakers, he was hired in 2007 as asubcontractor of lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates to work for the Equatorial Guinea government and President Teodoro Obiang. He was paid handsomely, raking in $15,000 a month in fees for his firm. Cassidy and Associates made headlines with their work for Obiang when an executive bragged about how they were able to get Obiang off Parade Magazine’s top ten list of worst dictators. Obiang only “improved” to being ranked the world’s 13th worst dictator.

Meierling fondly recounted his time in Equatorial Guinea in an interview, saying, “I was brought there in the mid 2000’s to help train them and help prop up the information ministry within the country.” The Ministry to which he referred is not so much one of information as it is propaganda.In its 2007 Freedom of the Press Report, the organization Freedom House described Equatorial Guinea as having “virtually no independent media” and stated that “all domestic radio and television stations are owned directly by the government or by the president’s family. State-owned media are dominated by sycophantic coverage of the government and the president.” The country still ranks at the bottom of Freedom House’s rankings with no independent journalism or freedom of speech.

The coverage by state run media is so atrocious, a presidential aide once compared President Obiang to Godwhile on a radio interview in 2003. “He [Obiang] can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell because it is God himself, with whom he is in permanent contact, and who gives him this strength,” said the aide. Obiang uses the state controlled media to stay in office, most recently in 2016 when he won a sham election with over 90 percent of the vote.

“It was just an incredible opportunity to build something from the ground up and to work in a developing nation with the people and the government that was really interested in growing, changing, and telling their story,” Meierling said of his work in Equatorial Guinea.

As part of that job, Meierling specifically worked to spin the dictator’s dismal human rights record.

In August of 2007, Meierling wrote a press release highlighting a visit by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions and the Equatorial Guinea’s supposed progress on “deprivation of liberty” and other human rights abuses.

Whatever progress allegedly occurred, however, was short-lived. In October of 2007, opposition party member Salvador Ndong Nguema died from injuries after being tortured in prison.

Later in 2010, four political opponents of President Obiang were abducted by Equatorial Guinean security forces in Benin after fleeing the country years earlier. They were held in the notorious Black Beach prison, where they allegedly confessed to a 2009 attempted coup. The military executed them after a brief military trial. Human rights observers viewed the military trial as a sham and believed the men were coerced to confess after being tortured.

Meierling also consulted with Equatorial Guinea on the development of its oil industry. In 2008, he wrote a press release for the government highlighting a trip by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) to the country’s new liquefied natural gas facility. A biography on Meierling for another PR firm that was recently removed described his work on the project and touted his connections to the Obiang regime. “When the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and Marathon Oilsought American support for construction of the world’s largest LNG export train from Bioko, Malabo, Equatorial Guinea to Elba Island, Georgia, the African nation’s leadership turned to him,” it said.

While the country’s oilfields have proven to be plentiful, the average citizen of Equatorial Guinea still lives in poverty. Despite having a per capita gross domestic product higher than that of Brazil and China, the country ranks 141st out of 189 on the United Nations Human Development Index.

Meierling has also worked for Obiang’s son, Teodorin, directly. In March, Meierling’s website listed Teodorin and his girlfriend at the time, Eve, as former clients for “reputation” management services, but the content has since been removed.

Teodorin has been the subject of numerous corruption investigations, and has assets have been seized by U.S., French, Swiss, and Brazilian authorities based on what the U.S. Justice Department characterized as “relentless embezzlement.”

According to a 2010 U.S. Senate investigation,

From 2004 to 2008, Teodoro [Teodorin] Nguema Obiang Mangue, son of the President of Equatorial Guinea, has used U.S. lawyers, bankers, real estate agents, and escrow agents to move over $110 million in suspect funds into the United States. Mr. Obiang is the subject of an ongoing U.S. criminal investigation, has been identified in corruption complaints filed in France, and was a focus of a 2004 Subcommittee hearing showing how Riggs Bank facilitated officials from Equatorial Guinea in opening accounts and engaging in suspect transactions.

The report attributed the success of Obiang and his family’s ability to embezzle funds to the help they received from numerous lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants to gain influence.

Meierling Assisted Congo Dictator in Misinformation Campaign to Keep Him in Office

In 2017, while working in his current capacity as chief marketing officer for ALEC, Meierling was paid $20,000 per month for public relations work by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Meierling described the work done through a company called How Handy is That LLC as “strategic communications services” and reported that he would be “writing for, advising or representing the foreign principal.”

Documents disclosed in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act show a series of op-eds appearing in the Washington Times in 2017, many of which attack Moise Katumbi, a candidate who was running in opposition to DRC President Joseph Kabila. While the articles are labeled as “sponsored,” none of them disclose the DRC government as the sponsor. One of the pieces authored by Meierling describes the electoral situation in the DRC as follows:

As President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) readies his country and its government for Congo’s next free and fair national election, some of the very opposition groups with whom he worked to arrange next year’s vote are coordinating with powerful forces outside of DRC who are deploying millions of dollars in foreign money to influence its outcome, undermine its integrity and financially benefit from its aftermath.

Meierling brazenly misinformed readers about the elections in the DRC when he described them as being “free and fair.” At the time, Kabila was illegally holding office, as his constitutionally limited two terms had expired in 2016.

Kabila’s government delayed the presidential election until 2018, claiming to need more time to update the country’s voter registry. Protests erupted in response to the delay, and the United Nations reported that government security forces killed 49 protesters.

The group Journalists in Danger “reported 121 cases of attacks on media from November 2017 to October [2018] and attributed 77 percent of these attacks to government agents, including nearly half to state security forces.”

Meierling is not currently registered as a foreign agent.

CMD reached out to ALEC for comment twice for this piece and received no response.

:{:{}:

===

}:

---

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/06/emails-melissa-cribbins-coos-county-commission-jordan-cove-lng

Last month, the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) project — which, if built, would become the largest source of climate pollution in Oregon — suffered a major setback as Pembina abruptly withdrew its application for a key state permit.

The company has said it is continuing to seek federal approval for the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and environmental advocates say they suspect Pembina may plan to move forward with the project regardless. Pembina had successfully obtained numerous county-level permits related to Jordan Cove over the past several months, though some of those permits are already under appeal.

==

https://yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/08/fbi-oregon-anti-pipeline-jordan-cove-activists

no lnx

Law enforcement groups, including the FBI, have been monitoring opponents of a natural gas infrastructure project in Oregon and circulated intelligence to an email list that included a Republican-aligned anti-environmental PR operative, emails obtained by the Guardian show.

The South Western Oregon Joint Task Force (SWOJTF) and its members were monitoring opponents of the Jordan Cove energy project, a proposal by the Canadian energy company Pembina to build the first-ever liquefied natural gas export terminal on the US west coast, as well as a new 232-mile pipeline that would carry fracked natural gas to the port of Coos Bay.

The Trump administration has named Jordan Cove as one of its highest-priority infrastructure projects. Jordan Cove opponents have raised concerns about the project’s significant environmental impacts, impacts on public lands, indigenous rights and climate change.

The emails, obtained via open records requests, reflect the increased scrutiny and surveillance to which law enforcement agencies are often subjecting indigenous and environmental groups, activists say.

'Protesters as terrorists': growing number of states turn anti-pipeline activism into a crime

Read more

It also comes amid an uptick in civil disobedience and direct actions challenging fossil fuel infrastructure projects – particularly in the wake of the Native American-led struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. They also reflect a nationwide tendency for rightwing partisans, law enforcement agencies and the fossil fuel industry to ally with one another in the suppression of such activities.

An email distribution list associated with the taskforce included addressees in the FBI, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Justice (DoJ), the National Forest Service (NFS), Oregon state police (OSP), and various Oregon municipal police and sheriffs departments. But some of its recipients are outside any government agency, most notably Mark Pfeifle, the CEO of the political consultancy Off The Record Strategies.

Pfeifle was previously a Bush administration PR adviser on national security. More recently, Pfeifle worked with law enforcement on a counter-information operation against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters.

When contacted by telephone about the Jordan Cove project, Mr Pfeifle said “I just don’t have anything for you, I’m not up on it,” before ending the conversation.

Emails circulated on the SWOJTF email list include activists’ social media posts, emails and rally announcements.

Pfeifle appeared on the distribution list of a November 2018 email from the list’s apparent keeper, theCoos county deputy sheriff, Bryan Valencia, which described a recent protest action by Southern Oregon Rising Tide, a direct action climate justice group.

“These are thetactics that are currently being used to forcibly insert their narrative into the conversation,”Valencia wrote. He noted: “There has long been a call for a ‘Standing Rock’ action by the Klamath Tribe in Klamath county.”

Don Gentry, the chairman of the Klamath Tribes, said Valencia’s characterization is false – his tribe has never put out such a call. “We’re working through the readily available channels to get this project stopped,” Gentry said.

In January 2019, Valencia circulated information on Facebook event attendance to a smaller group of SWOJTF officers, related to an upcoming Oregon department of state lands hearing, to some members of the taskforce, despite stating there was a “lack of a criminal nexus”.

The Coos county sheriffs office (CCSO) public information officer, Gabriel Fabrizio, wrote in response to emailed questions that SWOJTF had been set up to “ensure a multi-agency approach to any and all contingencies”.

Fabrizio added: “As potential dangers to the safety of the citizens and businesses of the county are identified, we monitor groups as long as necessary to determine if they will become a danger to others. Once it’s determined a group has not or likely will not conduct criminal activity, we discontinue monitoring.”

He also wrote that “Mr Pfiefle has no relationship with the Coos county sheriff’s office or with the SWOJTF. He was involved with training that was presented by the National Sheriffs Association to emergency responders in Coos county.”

He also denied that SWOJTF had been engaged in surveillance. “Surveillance implies an active gathering of data and images, and any monitoring we have conducted has been passive, simply watching for information,” he said.

The records reveal the existence of other law enforcement intelligence activities related to monitoring the work of environmental groups.

In a November 2018 email to Valencia, a BLM law enforcement analyst noted her role in the “Forest Intelligence Group (FIG)” that is also tracking activists. “I appreciate anything you find, and I am glad to share likewise,” the analyst wrote.

Fabrizio said in an email response to questions that FIG “began its life as a timber investigators meeting in the mid eighties … It has been sharing information about activity including criminal activity in our regions forests since that time. The intent of the group is to identify activities that may require sharing of resources or have an impact across traditional jurisdictional lines.”

In a telephone interview, a spokesman for the US attorney in Oregon also confirmed the existence of another body mentioned in the emails: a “domestic terrorism working group”led by the assistant US attorney, Craig Gabriel, that meets “roughly quarterly” in Portland. He said that the group was mostly made up of federal agencies but included some local law enforcement.

“It’s really just to discuss any current issues in the domestic terrorism arena. This could be local issues, all the way up to international issues,” the spokesman said. He said protest movements would be “within the scope” of its discussions even if no criminal activity had occurred.

In another email exchange, an FBI agent, Michael Frost, offered “open source and social media training” to the Coos county sheriffs, writing to Valencia that “with the significant social media presence of the anti-pipeline individuals, I figured your office would be a good place to start”.

The flyer for the training promises law enforcement officers information on tracking individuals online while minimizing their “digital footprint”, and indicates that it would be hosted by yet another law enforcement “task force”: the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Portland.

A spokesperson for the FBI’s Portland field office said in an email: “The FBI does not comment on what may or may not be an ongoing investigation. However, it is important to note that the FBI can never initiate an investigation based solely on first amendment-protected activity.”

On the training session, the spokesperson said: “The FBI’s Portland field office regularly provides training to local law enforcement agencies. This training covers a wide range of law enforcement topics, includingappropriate and legal use of open source material in investigations.”

Fabrizio said that the offer of training had not been taken up.

Although Coos Bay is located more than 200 miles away from Portland, the Portland police bureau (PPB) officer Andrew Hearst is also part of the SWOJTF email list. Hearst told Valencia in January 2019: “As always if we hear anything about our people heading down to your area we will alert asap.”

Jordan Cove opponents expressed alarm upon learning about the level of scrutiny they are receiving from so many different law enforcement entities.

“It is outrageous that our Oregon public agencies are actually working to plan how to stifle the very southern Oregonians whose drinking water, property and communities are threatened by this project,” said Sylvia Mangan, a retired public health nurse who lives on one of the proposed pipeline routes.

Asked why Pfeifle was included in the distribution of intelligence on protest groups, Fabrizio wrote: “Open source information is posted on public forums and not considered sensitive.”

He added: “Anyone who may be affected by potential actions are involved as an effort in community outreach and according to the tenets of community policing.”

Pfeifle previously described his work with law enforcement at Standing Rock during a 2017 presentation to oil, gas and banking executives during a pipeline conference in Houston. “A lot of things that we were doing were being done to put a marker down for the protesters. And, ‘OK, if you’re going to go protest somewhere? There’s going to be consequences from it.’”

In an email comment, the ACLU of Oregon questioned the legality of the activities revealed in the emails.

“Monitoring and compiling information about Oregonians’ political or social views, activities, or associations violates Oregon law,” said the spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong.

Lauren Regan, the executive director of the Oregon-based Civil Liberties Defense Center, says the SWOJTF’s activities reflect a nationwide trend. “Police and corporations are working together to suppress movements against fossil fuels,” she said.

Holly Mills of Southern Oregon Rising Tide, a group regularly subjected to scrutiny in the records obtained by the Guardian, said: “We know that the state, police and corporations have often tried to stop movements like this one by using fear as a tactic and repressing dissent. We have prepared ourselves with this in mind, and we communicate on social media and over email with the assumption that cops might be reading.”

==

https://www.hcn.org/articles/jordan-cove-lng-oregon-gas-export-rises-project-again-with-support-from-the-rockies

This April, President Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser gave a major endorsement for developing and exporting more natural gas across the Western U.S. During a D.C. policy talk, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said the U.S. should be the world’s leader in exporting natural gas, and even shared the administration’s strategy for getting there.

“The first thing we’re going to do is we’re going to permit an LNG export facility in the Northwest,” said Cohn, referring to a liquified natural gas port, where gas is chilled and liquefied for easier and cheaper storage and transport, including to customers overseas.

Cohn clearly meant the Jordan Cove Energy Project, which was denied a permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Obama administration in 2016. The $7.5 billion project, backed by the Calgary-based company Veresen, Inc., would include the Pacific Coast’s first LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon. The terminal would give Western producers access to the world’s largest gas market, consisting of Japan, the biggest consumer, South Korea, Taiwan and other Asia-Pacific countries. The 235-mile Pacific Connector pipeline is also part of the project. It would cross Oregon and provide a critical link between the export terminal and the rest of the West’s pipeline network, which stretches into gas-rich basins in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

An artist’s conception of the proposed Jordan Cove liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon. The project already has an Energy Department permit, but future terminals may be automatically approved if the Trans-Pacific Partnership goes through.

Jordan Cove LNG

If FERC commissioners green-light Jordan Cove, it could set off a massive new drilling boom on public lands within Colorado’s Piceance Basin, Wyoming’s Jonah Field and Utah’s Uintah Basin. Industry is already nominating more leases for drilling on public lands under Trump. “There seems to be an alignment of momentum around ramping up fracking in western Colorado,” says Jeremy Nichols, of WildEarth Guardians.

To win approval for the project, Veresen and its Oregon supporters, who see the project as a local job creator, have forged a powerful alliance with Rocky Mountain states eager to enter the export market. State government and industry officials from Colorado and Wyoming have even traveled to Asia to woo potential investors and customers. 

Still, even under Trump, the project isn’t a sure bet. Stagnating gas prices, caused by a supply glut in recent years, raise questions about the viability of Jordan Cove.

Currently, there’s only one LNG export terminal in the Lower 48, on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast. FERC, which regulates interstate energy transmission and transportation, has approved another 11 ports in the Gulf, Maryland and Georgia—but none so far on the West Coast.

FERC first considered Jordan Cove in 2007. Back then, it was proposed as an import project, which would have funneled gas from Russia or the Middle East to consumers on the West Coast. FERC issued a permit in 2009, but vacated the decision in 2012 as import prospects sank. Then, the meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima power plant created a different opportunity. After the disaster, Japan and other Asia Pacific countries began phasing out nuclear power and replacing it mostly with LNG. In 2013, a Veresen subsidiary resubmitted an application to FERC which re-envisioned Jordan Cove as an export terminal that could ship 1 billion cubic feet of gas a day. That’s enough to meet 8 percent of Japan’s current demand.

Around the same time, industry and government leaders in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah started exploring opportunities in foreign markets. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead and other state officials visited South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and India to build the case for new coal export terminals, as well as for Jordan Cove. An LNG terminal could be critical for gas producers in the state, says Brian Jeffries, executive director of the Wyoming Pipeline Authority, a state board that promotes energy development. The state’s domestic sales have dwindled in recent years due to the uptick in drilling and hydraulic fracturing nationwide. An Asia-Pacific export market could offset those losses.

Congressional representatives from both parties in all three states have expressed support for the project, and a 2014 report commissioned by a Western Colorado economic-development group, further stoked enthusiasm. It suggested that the Piceance Basin was an overlooked source of gas for Asia. The region’s steady production and the underused Ruby Pipeline, which runs from southwest Wyoming to eastern Oregon, meant there was supply and shipping capacity in existing infrastructure. Yet there was no way to get gas all the way to the coast.

[map]

to get natural gas from the Ruby Pipeline to the proposed Jordan Cove terminal, proponents also hope to build the Pacific Connector pipeline (the red line in the map), which crosses timber country in southern Oregon.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper took a copy of the economic report on a 2015 trade mission trip to Japan to plug the state’s energy capabilities. Then came a 2016 U.S. Geological Survey study, which estimated that the Piceance Basin’s Mancos shale formation contained an astronomical 66 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That’s more than 40 times a previous estimate, and enough to supply the entire U.S. for two-and-a-half years.

The trade missions and other efforts came as other countries also swarmed into Asia and stepped up gas production. Russia, Qatar, Malaysia and Australia already ship LNG to Asian countries. But David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group, says the U.S. holds an important competitive and philosophical advantage. “These (importing) countries have been looking to oligarchies, dictatorships and monarchies, all of them unstable and unpredictable, for their sources of energy,” Ludlam says. “Our ability to supply key trade allies and democracies that share the fundamental values that we have is an important shift. Would you rather buy natural gas from Vladimir Putin or John Hickenlooper?”

Those are good talking points, but an increase in global gas production has dropped prices, says Akos Losz, senior research analyst at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy. That is bad news for Jordan Cove, even with the advantage of its relative proximity to Japan and Asia because its construction costs are steep compared to other export terminals.

FERC released its environmental review of Jordan Cove in September 2015, and proponents considered it to be favorable. But the commission rejected the project in March 2016, finding “little or no evidence of need” for the connector pipeline and thus no need to build the export terminal either. In Oregon, environmentalists and landowners along the pipeline route strongly opposed it, since construction would require seizing private lands and clearing a 50-foot-wide corridor, while also contributing to more climate-changing fossil fuel development. The commission also cited the costs to landowners, who could be stripped of property through eminent domain.

Veresen and its Rocky Mountain allies hastily called for a rehearing, citing new pledges of support. Just weeks after the denial, Veresen announced preliminary agreements with a major Japanese utility alliance and a large corporation that would together buy half of the gas exported through the terminal for the project’s first 20 years. These deals were meant to show there were customers eager to buy its gas, and that there was in fact a need for the project.

FERC rejected the rehearing request in December of last year. But that now looks like a temporary setback, as Trump’s team hawks LNG exports. Veresen filed a new pre-application with FERC this spring, and included commitments from 100 of the 265 impacted landowners to accommodate the pipeline, plus letters of intent from the Japanese customers. Trump also recently nominated three new FERC commissioners, who could rule on the new application this year.

“It bodes well for the project,” Ludlam says of administration support, adding investments are already picking up in Piceance Basin.

Losz, however, cautions that political zeal alone won’t get gas flowing across the Pacific. Should FERC permit Jordan Cove, opponents could challenge the approval in court as a political decision, rather than a sound regulatory one, based on Cohn’s telegraphed statements.

Further, the Asian market is likely to remain saturated with cheap gas through 2023, Losz says. And the commitments from Japanese buyers are not guarantees, and probably not enough to justify building the project at current prices. “For Jordan Cove, the (financial) reality could be hard to overcome,” Losz says.

Joshua Zaffos is an HCN correspondent reporting from Fort Collins, Colorado. 

---

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/03/booming-lng-industry-could-be-as-bad-for-climate-as-coal-experts-warn

no lnx

The booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry will play at least as big a role as new coal investments in bringing on a climate crisis if all planned projects go ahead, US-based energy analysts and campaigners say.

The report by the Global Energy Monitor appears at odds with comments by Australia’s emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, who has said the country could be proud that the rapidly expanding LNG export industry was displacing coal power overseas.

Government analysis identified LNG as the main reason Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen each year since 2015, but the minister and industry say Australian gas deserves credit for lowering global emissions.

'Problem in waiting': why natural gas will wipe out Australia's emissions gains

Read more

The Global Energy Monitor, formerly known as CoalSwarm, is a US-based research and advocacy group that tracks fossil fuel development. It found there were US$1.3tn in planned LNG investments across the globe, including nearly $38bn in Australia, putting it fourth on a list behind the US, Canada and Russia.

Ted Nace, the group’s executive director, said the proposed tripling of global LNG capacity risked introducing decades of emissions of methane, a potent and difficult-to-monitor greenhouse gas, at odds with the Paris climate agreement. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year estimated methane emissions would need to be reduced by 35% between 2010 and 2050 to meet the Paris goals.

“The one piece of good news is that most of these projects are in the pre-construction stage so there is still time for a moratorium on LNG infrastructure before we lock ourselves into even more irreversible climate damage,” he said.

A separate study in the journal Nature found existing fossil fuel infrastructure alone, including coal and gas-fired power stations, would almost certainly be enough to push the world beyond 1.5C global heating if not shut down earlier than planned.

Australia’s LNG industry has already more than tripled since 2012as developments have come online in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. A recent government Resources and Energy Quarterly report forecast the value of Australian LNG exports will be nearly $50bn this year, second only to iron ore.

Natural gas is at times described as a transition fuel in the response to the climate crisis as it has about half the carbon dioxide emissions of black coal when burned to generate electricity. That argument has been rejected by the head of the International Energy Agency and science bodies warning the world needs to rapidly move to clean energy and industries.

Nace said it was difficult to compare emissions from coal and gas given their different nature. Gas has lower CO2 emissions than black coal when burned for electricity, but LNG developments also leak methane, which is a relatively short-lived gas that lasts in the atmosphere about 12 years but still has a warming power about 28 times greater than the same amount of CO2 when calculated over a century.

A recent study found the level of atmospheric methane has increased significantly since 2007 after a relative flat period. Scientists are unsure why.

Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

Global Energy Monitor researchers found fugitive methane emissions from new LNG extraction and processing would be expected to have as large or larger global heating impact than proposed coal power expansion.

“The truth about LNG is nobody knows what is happening across the supply chain,” Nace said. “But it’s very easy to see leakage of 2% to 3% and if that much gets away into the atmosphere it is significant – it gives a jolt of warming.”

On Taylor’s claim that Australia’s gas was displacing coal in Asia, Nace said it was likely this was true in some places, particularly parts of China, but in others it was being used to meet new energy demand that could be delivered with clean energy.

Australia won't reach Paris target without action on transport, LNG and coal, expert says

Read more

Taylor has said Australia’s LNG exports had the potential to lower global emissions by up to 148m tonnes last year, equivalent to 27% of Australia’s annual climate pollution. The department reached this estimate by assuming all exported Australian gas was used to replace coal.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association chief executive, Andrew McConville, said the Global Energy Monitor study was flawed as it compared the total emissions from coal and gas but did not include a genuine lifecycle analysis, which would show gas had a significantly lesser impact.

He said the association supported a national climate policy that cut emissions at least cost and supported investment decisions “consistent with an international price on carbon”.

“Australia’s oil and gas sector has a vital role to play in meeting the challenge of reducing global emissions,” McConville said.

Nace said LNG developments were on a collision course with the Paris agreement and the declining cost of renewable energy. He said it created the risk of more than US$1tn in stranded assets.

“These are 40-year investments from an industry standpoint,” he said. “Natural gas infrastructure may be competitive in three, four or five years but do people expect it to be competitive with renewables in 15 years?”

Comment was sought from Taylor.

==

==

519

 Department of Energy, US policy will support the export of American energy products such as liquefied natural gas as “molecules of US freedom” to the rest of the world.

==

whyy

:{:{}:

}:

Trump wants more natural gas exported to Europe. Liquified natural gas plays a significant role in the trade deal with the European Union, and the president wants Europe to buy less from Russia. StateImpact Pennsylvania’s Susan Phillips spoke to Bob Ineson, managing director of North American natural gas with IHS Markit, an information and analysis provider to businesses and governments.

Q: What does this trade deal actually say about natural gas?

The Trump administration really desires to change the physical balance of trade, and the thing that we have in abundance that we can export is natural gas. And so it’s a natural thing to focus on.

Q: What are the odds that that’s going to happen, that we’re actually going to export more natural gas to Europe?

Well, it’s been coming for a while. If you look at the shale boom, the consequence of it is that U.S. gas production is up on the order of 60 percent since 2008. The thing that is limiting U.S. gas production is available markets. So it’s natural for the market to be trying to reach out and get back into the broader global market where gas is less plentiful than it is here.

Q: They’re trying to reach out not just internationally but also domestically, right? That’s why we have so many pipeline projects right now in the country.

The reason we have so many projects is the growth in supply has occurred in areas that were different than [where it was] traditionally, where the pipeline system had been designed to move gas from the Gulf Coast and then later from the Rocky Mountains into the northeast. Now you have the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale and it’s changed the center of gravity of production. So you have to redesign, reconfigure the pipeline system to accommodate it.

If you look at the Marcellus in 2008, its production level was essentially zero, and today it’s over 20 billion cubic feet per day. By itself, that’s more than a quarter of U.S. production.

Q:Is this new push by President Trump to export the LNG going to change where the Marcellus is going, whether it’s for domestic or international consumption? For example, a new LNG export terminal in Cove Point, Maryland is shipping Marcellus Shale gas from Northeast Pennsylvania to India and Japan now.

A: Well, for the next several years it won’t change much of anything simply because LNG projects have a long construction cycle. And so anything that’s going to be on stream in the next couple of years is something that’s already under construction. The Cove Point export terminal in Maryland can accommodate only a small portion of the Marcellus, production capacity [at the export terminal] is about 700 million cubic feet per day on a sustained basis. I think it peaked higher than that but compared to the 20 plus billion cubic feet per day of the Marcellus Shale production, the export terminal is a fraction of the output. For the Marcellus to reach the LNG projects that are coming on stream now, the large growth capacity, that’s going to be on the Gulf Coast.

Q: And I guess one question I think that everyone may have is, of course right now the price of natural gas is really cheap in part because of the Marcellus Shale selling for under three dollars per but, but if these exports increase, if Trump’s goal is met in terms of Europe buying more natural gas from the U.S. rather than Russia, what does that mean to us here? Will we start paying more on our gas bills?

We don’t think so. The resource base is really quite large and in our outlook, we have some pretty strong growth from where we are in U.S. LNG exports. The resource base that we estimate is available for under four dollars [will] last beyond the end of our forecast horizon, which is 2040.

Q: And so what does that mean for Pennsylvania? I know we have a number of pipeline projects in the works right now. Do you see more building happening?

We do but we expect the pace to slow. The Marcellus has gotten so big and its footprint on the continent has gotten so big in terms of the area that it serves that the pipeline capacity that’s needed is getting to be progressively longer in distance. And we’re rapidly approaching a point where you may need to build capacity out of the Marcellus all the way to the Gulf Coast, and that’s an expensive proposition. But there is nothing in this picture that points to, say, a reversal anytime soon. You wouldn’t expect Marcellus production to fall.

==

LNG: Trump's export push may need congressional muscle - E&E News

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060091217

1.

Jul 26, 2018 - Dominion Energy Inc.'s Cove Point natural gas terminal in Lusby, Md. ... shale gas, with officials like former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ...

EPA: Pruitt promotes gas exports in trip abroad -- Wednesday ...

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060068933

1.

Dec 13, 2017 - While Pruitt's LNG message aligns with President Trump's "energy dominance" agenda, his promotion of gas exports angered advocates of ...

EPA's Acting Head Vows To Carry Out Trump's ... - Oil & Gas Investor

https://www.oilandgasinvestor.com/epa-acting-head-andrew-wheeler-trump-regulation...

1.

Jul 12, 2018 - Unlike Pruitt, Wheeler has been known to shun the spotlight. ... Wheeler also lobbied for energy interests including utility Xcel Energy Inc., Bears Head LNG. ... diesel, and whether the EPA chief has a role in promoting U.S. fossil-fuel exports. ... Shale Makes Oil, Natural Gas Price Correlation Less Pertinent.

Trump's plan for LNG exports to Europe may not have much impact in ...

https://whyy.org/.../trumps-plan-for-lng-exports-to-europe-may-not-have-much-impa...

1.

7 days ago - President Trump wants more natural gas exported to Europe. ... Maryland is shipping Marcellus Shale gas from Northeast Pennsylvania to India ...

Missing: wheeler ‎| ‎Must include: ‎wheeler

Trump: Path to Energy Dominance Paved by LNG Exports - Morning ...

https://morningconsult.com/2017/.../trump-path-energy-dominance-paved-lng-export...

1.

Jun 29, 2017 - Trump: Path to Energy Dominance Paved by LNG Exports ... by promoting the economic benefits of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports. ... Environmental Protection Agency Administrator ScottPruitt said at Thursday's event.

Missing: frack ‎wheeler

Daily on Energy: What does Kennedy's retirement mean for energy ...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-on-energy-what-does-kennedys-retireme...

1.

Jun 28, 2018 - The U.S. has become a net export of natural gas, and Qatar wants a part of the ... “on the rise of American #LNG exports and the increased energy security that it .... Pruitt or President Trump'sagenda, probably on climate,” Wheeler said. ... at the wellhead to frack gas to the pipelines that transports this gas.

===

2008, San Diego-based Sempra Energy opened a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal called Costa Azul on a picturesque stretch of beach in Baja California, Mexico, over the protests of environmentalists, residents, and surfers.

Costa Azul was built on the claim that the U.S. was running out of natural gas, but now Sempra is arguing the opposite: It wants to put another facility there to export the U.S.’s glut of gas as LNG to Asian markets. And with Trump’s ongoing trade war with China prompting the Asian powerhouse toslap a 25 percent tariff on LNG imports from the U.S., shipping that gas from Mexico out of Costa Azul may provide a safe haven for U.S. companies with access to the Pacific Coast.

Steve Horn and Martha Pskowski document the history, legal battles, and environmental costs associated with the Costa Azul LNG terminal and its role in the fracked gas rush sweeping the U.S.

And Sempra has been busy lately. It spearheaded the recent launch of the “Global Natural Gas Coalition” to promote exporting fracked gas, with the support of Trump administration officials and a labor union.

==

:{:{}:

}:

In the case of Steven Hart, his energy industry lobbying clients are clearly impacted by rules and regulations issued by the EPA. One of his other major fossil fuel clients isCheniere Energy, a developer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in the United States. Cheniere built the first LNG export terminal in the continental United States. Each of the LNG export shipments in 2017 from the U.S. originated from Cheniere’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana.

In December, Pruitt and members of his staff spent about $40,000 in taxpayer funds to fly to Morocco to urge the North African country to import LNG from the United States.

Citizens for Ethics

?

@CREWcrew