Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

Biden Bets on the Climate Crowd

According to a Times report, the administration is delaying approval of a major — and majorly controversial — LNG export terminal.

A natural gas plant.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This morning, as far as anyone knew, the U.S. was considering whether to approve 17 new facilities for the export of liquified natural gas. By this afternoon, in a move destined to ripple through the race for the White House, those considerations were off. According to reporting by The New York Times, Biden officials have paused their decisionmaking, instead asking the Department of Energy to widen its review of the first of these 17 — known as Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2 — to include effects on the global climate.

“Um, I think we all just won,” wrote Bill McKibben — perhaps the project’s staunchest foe — in a newsletter sent out just a few hours later. “Yes,” he wrote, “there are always devils in the details. And it doesn’t guarantee long-term victory — it sets up a process where victory is possible (to this point, the industry has gotten every permit they’ve asked for). But I have a beer in my hand.”

That possible breaking of historical precedent partially explains why McKibben is so exhilarated. Another reason has a lot to do with an analysis of the climate effects of U.S. LNG exports, released in November by energy analyst Jeremy Symons. Among his most incendiary findings was that, if all 17 export terminals were approved, the emissions related to the fuel that would flow through them would exceed the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the entire European Union.

This analysis was not subject to peer review, and it relies on another set of findings from Cornell University researcher Robert Howarth showing that “the footprint for LNG is greater than that of either coal or natural gas;” these findings are subject to peer review but have not yet passed that test. That’s not to say either is inherently suspect, but neither is exactly a consensus opinion.

Biden’s administration has itself been split over the decision, according to reporting last week in Bloomberg. The U.S. became the largest global exporter of LNG after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, according to more Bloomberg data, and some in the administration would rather continue to press that geopolitical advantage. But others — including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and climate adviser John Podesta — pressed back. “Overall, top advisers are broadly aligned on the need to make changes — especially after the U.S. and nearly 200 other nations committed in December to transition away from fossil fuels,” the Bloomberg authors cautioned. “The fault lines are over how aggressive to be.”

Heatmap reached out to the White House and got a “no comment” in response — neither a confirmation nor a denial, nor any kind of signal of what may lie ahead. Let’s assume, then, that the Times got it right. Where does that leave us?

Republican leaders and their surrogates were ready with attacks even before this latest development. “Biden Toys With an LNG Export Permitting Ban,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board trumpeted on Monday. On Wednesday, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed (falsely) on the Senate floor that “the administration’s war on affordable domestic energy has been bad news for American workers and consumers alike.” And, of course, former President Donald Trump has made Biden’s supposed antipathy for American energy consumers a staple of his campaign pitch to re-enter the White House.

The thing is, Biden’s climate policies are actually pretty popular, even if most people don’t know what they are. A substantial majority of Americans — and an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Independents — acknowledge that the climate is changing because of human activity and want to see the government do things like provide tax incentives for energy-efficient homes and make it easier to build new wind farms, , according to Heatmap’s polling, both of which the Biden administration is doing. (Of course, our results also find that most Americans, albeit fewer of them, want to make fossil fuel expansion easier, too.)

There are plenty of big questions remaining — not least of which is whether Biden has, in fact, put off making a decision on these LNG terminals, but also how such a decision will ripple through the global energy economy. (Although even in deciding not decide on the expected timeline, Biden has at the very least raised costs for the developers of these export facilities, which is a decision in its own right.)

What was never in question is that this would be a major campaign issue, no matter what Biden did. It looks like he has cast his bet in favor of the climate crowd. We’ll see how it plays.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

Why Really Tiny Nuclear Reactors Are Bringing In Big Money

Last Energy just raised a $40 million Series B.

A Last Energy microreactor.
Heatmap Illustration/Last Energy

Nuclear energy is making a comeback, conceptually at least. While we’re yet to see a whole lot of new steel in the ground, money is flowing into fusion, there’s a push to build more standard fission reactors, and the dream of small modular reactors lives on, even in the wake of the NuScale disappointment.

All this excitement generally revolves around nuclear’s potential to provide clean, baseload power to the grid. But Washington D.C.-based Last Energy is pursuing a different strategy — making miniature, modularized reactors to provide power directly to industries such as data centers, auto manufacturing, and pulp and paper production. Size-wise, think small modular reactors, but, well, even smaller — Last Energy’s units provide a mere 20 megawatts of electricity, whereas a full-size reactor can be over 1,000 megawatts. SMRs sit somewhere in between.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Sparks

Why That One Tesla Cybertruck Caption Is Suddenly Everywhere on TikTok

Believe it or not, it doesn’t have anything to do with Elon Musk.

A Cybertruck.
Heatmap Illustration/Tesla

It shows up when you are most vulnerable. Maybe it’s under a reel of Fleabag’s season 2, episode 5 confession scene, in which Phoebe Waller-Bridge finally gets together with Andrew Scott’s “hot priest.” Or maybe it’s slapped on a TikTok of an industrial hydraulic press squashing some gummy bears. No matter what, it’s always the caption of the video you find yourself transfixed by without quite knowing why: “The Tesla Cybertruck Is an All-Electric Battery-Powered Light-Duty Truck.”

For the past few months, Instagram and TikTok users have been inundated by posts with the same caption, a seemingly AI-generated paragraph about Tesla’s Cybertruck, providing a “comprehensive overview of its key features and specifications.” The caption could be applied to anything and pops up seemingly at random, creating the disconcerting effect that Elon Musk is lurking around every digital corner. This is not because legions of social media users have suddenly become lunatic Cybertruck stans, however (though there are certainly some of those, too). Rather, it’s a technique for spam accounts to game the algorithm and boost their engagement.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Sparks

China Might Not Need Coal to Grow Anymore

And if it doesn’t, that’s very good news, indeed, for global emissions.

China Might Not Need Coal to Grow Anymore

First it was the reservoirs in China’s massive network of hydroelectric dams filling up, then it was the approval of 11 new nuclear reactors — and it’s all happening as China appears to be slowing down its approval of new coal plants, according to a research group that closely follows the Chinese energy transition.

While China is hardly scrapping its network of coal plants, which power 63% of its electric grid and makes it the world’s biggest consumer of coal (to the tune of about half of global coal consumption), it could mean that China is on the verge of powering its future economic growth non-carbon-emitting energy. This would mean a break with decades of coal-powered growth and could set the table for real emissions reductions from the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Keep reading...Show less