To continue reading

Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.

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

Sparks

Republicans Are Doing Ideological Loop-the-Loops Over LNG

It’s silly season on the Hill.

The Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

On Tuesday, North Dakota Republican Kelly Armstrong insisted Congress needs to put actual muscle behind all its talk of environmental justice. Freedom Caucus member Debbie Lesko of Arizona made an argument for reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan, who has repeatedly voted against economic assistance for Ukraine, made the case that the United States is all that stands between Kyiv and Putin.

Confused? Dizzy? Disoriented? I can hardly blame you.

This, unfortunately, is all part of the Republican Party’s fossil fuel defense strategy. In the first of two hearings on the Hill this week concerning the White House’s pause on approving new permits for facilities to export liquified natural gas, Americans got a good preview, but you can plan to see a lot more of it.

In addition to the hearings, the party will also reportedly convene an “energy week” later this month to promote the “Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act,” which aims to stop the Department of Energy’s “interference” in approving LNG exports and put such decisions in the hands of the more conservative-friendly Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (Earlier attempts to do the same have so far failed to make it through the Democrat-controlled Senate). The gameplan appears to be straight out of The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook for a Republican presidential victory this November.

In practice, the strategy looked a lot like Republicans on the House Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee raising traditionally liberal talking points to undermine the Biden administration’s order. By their topsy-turvy logic, the administration should not pause approving new export terminals because natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and thus our best bet for fighting climate change — an argument that is still under considerable debate in the scientific community, and coming from these folks is especially weird. It’s not every day you hear a Republican witness praise “the world’s call for cleaner energy,” as Toby Rice, the CEO of the largest U.S. natural gas producer, EQT Corp., did on Tuesday.

House Republicans kept up their Opposite Day bit by:

  • Insisting Biden take into account the “environmental justice” of low-income Americans whose electricity could be affected by a hypothetical end to natural gas production — something that, to be clear, is not currently on the table. They also cited the human rights of miners in the Congo and China who toil for the minerals used in renewable energy production. While that is a concern for sure, it was hard not to feel the cynicism of the argument when Americans near LNG export terminals suffer greatly, too.

  • Making the case that un-pausing LNG permitting is critical to America’s continued support of European allies in the face of Russian aggression — even when many of them have voted to block Ukrainian aid and will even do so again later today.

  • Eric Cormier, a Republican witness and the senior vice president of entrepreneurship and strategic initiatives at the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, claimed investment in the export terminals is necessary because coastal Louisiana needs to rebuild from its repeated hurricanes and floods — apparently missing the irony of making such an argument in a warming world. He also dismissed the pollution caused by LNG, claiming the export terminals are not built near significant population centers, and in doing so confirmed the fears of frontline residents who say their health and livelihoods have been intentionally sacrificed for the sake of industry.

  • Rice, the natural gas CEO, also claimed that the Biden administration’s LNG pause is part of an activist “playbook” of delaying and introducing uncertainty, even when delay and doubt are literally out of the fossil fuel playbook against climate change action.

Needless to say, the whole charade could make you start to feel a bit loopy, and that was even before an argument broke out over the meaning of the words “pause” versus “ban.” Republicans repeatedly used the B-word to refer to the LNG permitting pause, though Republican witness Brigham McCown, the director of the Hudson Institute’s American Energy Security Initiative, put his foot in his mouth when he claimed, “This is a ban, and I don’t think we’re going to see the pause end until after the presidential election.”

Democrats and their lone witness, lawyer Gillian Gianetti of the Natural Resources Defense Council, put on a good (if weary) face pushing back on Republicans. “The repeated references to this action as a ban, as a fan of The Princess Bride, makes me think of Inigo Montoya,” Gianetti quipped at one point: “They keep saying the word ban, but I don’t think they know what it means.”

But ranking member Diana DeGette of Colorado perhaps encapsulated the hearing best in her opening round of questioning. “I can’t help sitting here thinking that the silly season has begun,” she told her colleagues.

She’s not wrong, either. Silly season is just getting started.

Yellow

Jeva Lange

Jeva is a founding staff writer at Heatmap. Her writing has also appeared in The Week, where she formerly served as executive editor and culture critic, as well as in The New York Daily News, Vice, and Gothamist, among others. Jeva lives in New York City. Read More

Read More

To continue reading

Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.

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

Sparks

Coal’s Slowdown Is Slowing Down

Rising electricity demand puts reliability back on the table.

Pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The United States has been able to drive its greenhouse gas emissions to their lowest level since the early 1990s largely by reducing the amount of energy on the grid generated by coal to a vast extent. In 2005, by far the predominant source of U.S. electricity, making up some 2.2 million gigawatt-hours of the country’s 4.3 million GWh total energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. In 2022, by contrast, coal generation was down to 900,000 GWh out of 4.5 million GWh generated. As a result, “U.S. emissions are 15.8% lower than 2005 levels, while power emissions are 40% lower than 2005 levels,” according to BloombergNEF and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.

But the steady retirement of coal plants may be slowing down. Only 2.3 GW of coal generating capacity are set to be shut down so far in 2024, according to the Energy Information Administration. While in 2025, that number is expect to jump up to 10.9 GW, the combined 13.2 GW of retired capacity pales in comparison of the more than 22 GW retired in the past two years, according to EIA figures. Over the past decade, coal retirements have averaged about 10 GW a year, with actual retirements often outpacing forecasts.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Sparks

Trump Thinks EV Charging Will Cost $3 Trillion — Which Is Incorrect

Nor will charging infrastructure ”bankrupt” the U.S.

Electric car charging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Shortly after being fined $350 million (more than $450 million, including interest) over fraudulent business practices and then booed at Sneaker Con, former President Donald Trump traveled to Waterford, Michigan, where he said some incorrect things about electric vehicles.

Even by Trump’s recent standards, Saturday’s Waterford rally was a bit kooky. During his nearly hour-and-a-half-long speech, the former president claimed that his opponents are calling him a whale (“I don’t know if they meant a whale from the standpoint of being a little heavy, or a whale because I got a lot of money”) and, improbably, claimed not to have known what the word “indictment” meant.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Sparks

This Chicken Named Potato Will Teach Your Kids About Climate Change

A chicken from the future, to be clear.

Future Chicken.
Heatmap Illustration/CBC, Getty Images

If I told you there was a chicken named Potato who was going to teach our kids about climate change, would you think I was kidding? Either way, I’m here to inform you that Future Chicken, an “ECOtainment platform” co-created by Catherine Winder and Annabel Slaight, launched last year, including original content like a TV show that airs on CBC and YouTube, games, and a podcast, all aimed at warding off climate doom and instead highlighting climate solutions.

Winder and Slaight have, to put it mildly, impressive resumes, with Slaight having been an executive producer of The Big Comfy Couch and Winder a force behind multiple Angry Birds movies. The show’s premise is fun, and was actually thought up by kids. The main character is a chicken (named Potato) from the year 2050, a time when climate change has seemingly been solved. She travels back and forth between the future and the present, sometimes talking about the solutions of her time.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
HMN Banner
Get today’s top climate story delivered right to your inbox.

Sign up for our free Heatmap Daily newsletter.