exports

September 13, 2024

Scientists urge US officials to reject LNG export expansion

By Dana Drugmand

More than 125 scientists have issued a stern warning to US officials over a rapid expansion of natural gas production, saying the moves threaten to exacerbate the climate crisis and risk further environmental and public health harms.

The scientists delivered their message in a September 12 letter addressed to US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, pushing back against industry claims that expanding natural gas production and consumption is compatible with US and international climate goals.

The concerns from the scientific community come as the US Department of Energy prepares to update an evaluation of liquified natural gas (LNG) export approvals, and as the Treasury Department reviews the climate impacts of various forms of hydrogen production, including production from fossil gas, as it determines tax credit values. The Biden administration paused new LNG export approvals earlier this year to further evaluate their climate impacts.

“The stakes could not be higher,” the scientists wrote. “The choices that you make relating to modeling assumptions for the heat-trapping potential of natural gas will determine if the federal government will make decisions based on climate science or wishful thinking. The science is clear… that the continued use of gas at current global levels will add to global warming and climate damages.”

The letter follows the July release of a study by two groups advocating for natural gas that concluded 2022 global greenhouse gas emissions would have been much higher without US LNG exports. That study did not look at emissions reductions that could have been achieved with a shift to renewable energy or other lower carbon alternatives, however.

In the scientists’ letter to US officials, the group said the fossil fuel industry was falsely asserting that an expansion of natural gas production and consumption is consistent with climate goals. The industry is “advocating for flawed modeling assumptions that would hide the true climate impact of gas,” the scientists wrote, calling it “imperative” for the government to reject the industry.

“Trying to prove whether US gas is better or worse for the climate than other fossil fuels is like debating whether the water in the Titanic’s swimming pool is the right temperature. It misses the bigger point, which is that increasing supplies of fossil fuels from anywhere will undermine global progress toward science based climate goals,” the letter states.

In response to the letter from scientists, Hinson Peters, a spokesperson for the Natural Natural Gas Supply Association and Center for LNG, said US LNG exports “remain a vital tool for countries looking to replace dirtier fuels, increase renewable energy deployments, and strengthen their energy security.”

February 27, 2024

Hardline US stance ignores non-GM corn opportunity for American farmers

By Ken Roseboro and Timothy A. Wise

United States commodity organizations have cheered on the US government as it tries to get Mexico’s restrictions on genetically modified (GM) corn declared in violation of our trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, arguing that it cuts farmers’ export markets and sales revenues. But what if Mexico’s modest restrictions could instead turn out to benefit US farmers who shift to premium non-GM corn markets as international corn prices fall?

It sounds counter-intuitive, but it might just be true. The math is pretty simple. Despite all the bluster about Mexico’s February 2023 restrictions on GM corn, they affect a very small share of US exports. After negotiations with the US government over a more restrictive 2020 decree, Mexico dramatically limited its revised order, exempting GM feed corn from any mandated reductions. The restrictions apply only to the use of GM corn in tortillas and other products minimally processed for direct human consumption.

The restrictions were intended mainly as precautionary measures for a population that consumes more such corn products than anyone else on the planet. The corn for tortillas, and the minimally processed flour for tamales, enchiladas, and other Mexican staples, are overwhelmingly non-GM white and native varieties from Mexican producers.

Before the decree, Mexico was importing only about 600,000 tons of white corn from the US each year, a tiny share of the 16.5 million tons of US corn it imported last year. That means that barely 3% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s restrictions. But the share is actually closer to 1%, because only an estimated half of US white corn are GM varieties, and barely half of US white corn exports are destined for Mexico’s tortilla industry, according to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports.

So just 1% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s policies. From the beginning, the Mexican government has asserted that its revised and less restrictive decree has little impact on American growers. They are right, and the US in the formal presentation of its complaint did not even attempt to quantify how many US farmers are affected.

And here’s the thing: Those who are affected can always switch to non-GM white food-grade corn and export to Mexico’s tortilla industry.

US farmers who do that could earn premium prices, ranging from $0.25 to $0.50 per bushel for non-GM white corn, according to industry sources. Such premiums could be particularly attractive right now to farmers who saw corn prices fall more than 30% last year.

US trade officials have preferred not to discuss non-GM opportunities for U.S. farmers, but some farmers and grain suppliers would welcome them.

December 20, 2023

170 scientists urge Biden to reject huge proposed gas export project

By Shannon Kelleher

In the wake of the COP28 climate summit, 170 US scientists from the US and around the world sent a letter Tuesday calling for the Biden administration to reject a massive natural gas export facility proposed for Louisiana, as well as similar pending projects.

The facility, Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2), would be the largest liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal in the Gulf, spanning about 546 acres and shipping up to 24 million tons of LNG to other countries each year.

CP2 would be the second LNG export terminal built in the Gulf region by the company Venture Global and would result in annual emissions equivalent to 42 million gas-powered cars – 20 times more than the recently approved Willow oil project in Alaska.

“You have often said that your policies will be guided by listening to the science,” the letter says, addressing President Biden. “As scientists we are telling you in clear and unambiguous terms that approving CP2 and other LNG projects will undermine your stated goals of meaningfully addressing the climate crisis and put us on a continued path toward escalating climate chaos.”

The letter to President Biden follows a Dec. 11 letter from over 230 organizations that also implored President Biden and Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to halt the project.

“I think what we’re seeing is the logical response to continued and repeated inaction from the Biden administration to meaningfully address any platform to phase out fossil fuels,” said Jim Walsh, policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch.