Joe Biden's LNG pause: good policy or bad posturing?
Critics from all sides attack the White House for freezing permits for some new liquified natural gas export terminals
Late last month, President Joe Biden announced that his administration was issuing a broad pause on pending approvals for new liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, arguing in a press release that the freeze was part of the White House's push to "lead the way in ambitious climate action while ensuring the American economy remains the envy of the world." Biden's order, which crucially does not affect the nation's existing or already approved LNG export facilities, has become a flashpoint across the political spectrum — and around the world. Shortly after the decision was announced, Conservative West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin said his Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would hold hearings to "get to the facts" on the pause, while the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee vowed to hold their own hearings on what chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) called Biden's "political decision to appease radical climate activists."
At the same time, the freeze has prompted hand-wringing from international observers who worry that any disruption to American outflow of LNG could jeopardize European efforts to wean itself off Russian-supplied fuel — an effort that's taken on particular significance and urgency amid the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war.
For a White House that has banked much of its reputation on taking significant action to address the nexus of climate change and American energy independence, does this administration's new LNG pause truly live up to those expectations, or are there other considerations at play here?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What did the commentators say?
The LNG pause is Biden's "most sweeping step yet" to pump the breaks on a "fossil fuel industry that has prospered on his watch," said Politico, which noted the "resurgence of environmental groups' influence" on the administration ahead of the upcoming election. Longtime environmental activist and author Bill McKibben seemingly agreed, ceding that while the order "doesn’t guarantee long-term victory" for fossil fuel opponents, it does set up a future "where victory is possible." Possible disappointments notwithstanding, the move itself is reason enough for McKibben to "have a beer in my hand" in celebration.
The debate over this new pause is, in part, one of political self-interest, The New Republic's Liza Featherstone said, arguing that while Democrats "want to goose turnout for Biden" based on actual environmental policy, Republicans "want to animate the angry petrosexuals in their base." Stressing that "most" of the misinformation over the order is "coming from Republicans and the fossil fuel industry," environmental journalist Emily Atkin in her Heated newsletter allowed that "some Democrats and environmental groups are stretching the truth too," overplaying the order's impact to "motivate progressives" in November.
By offering this "raw political payoff to the climate left," the Biden administration is risking "U.S. national security and economic interests," said the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal. The order is an "election-year sop to climate activists" which will ultimately "unsettle vital U.S. alliances" instead of saving the planet, The Washington Post's editorial board agreed. If the pause genuinely curtails future American LNG exports, it will simply "drive customers into the arms of competitors such as Australia, Qatar, Algeria and, yes, Russia."
What next?
While the new rule likely won't affect LNG supply itself "in the short or medium term," it "erodes confidence in the longer term" Shell CEO Wael Sawan predicted to The Financial Times. Fellow oil executive Exxon CFO Kathy Mikells also criticized the order, claiming to Fortune that "it harms the world achieving net zero sooner rather than later" by pushing for expanded use of coal, which is more environmentally harmful (per Atkin, overall volume of US Exported LNG is, in fact, "expected to double by 2028").
More immediately, the administration's efforts have rankled several fellow Democrats who, in a relatively rare rebuke of a sitting president in a close election cycle, have come out asking the White House to "refocus" its LNG policies, as 10 House Democrats from several oil producing states did in a joint letter. The Democratic senators from Pennsylvania were "more pointed" in their criticism, said Bloomberg, citing a joint statement from Bob Casey and John Fetterman threatening to "push the Biden administration to reverse this decision" if state jobs are "at risk."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Rafi Schwartz has worked as a politics writer at The Week since 2022, where he covers elections, Congress and the White House. He was previously a contributing writer with Mic focusing largely on politics, a senior writer with Splinter News, a staff writer for Fusion's news lab, and the managing editor of Heeb Magazine, a Jewish life and culture publication. Rafi's work has appeared in Rolling Stone, GOOD and The Forward, among others.
-
Saint Paul de Vence: a paradise for art lovers
The Week Recommends The hilltop gem in the French Riviera where 20th century modernism flourished
By Alexandra Zagalsky Published
-
'People in general want workers to earn a decent living'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
What might a Trump victory mean for the global economy?
Today's Big Question A second term in office for the 'America First' administration would send shockwaves far beyond the United States' shores
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
What might a Trump victory mean for the global economy?
Today's Big Question A second term in office for the 'America First' administration would send shockwaves far beyond the United States' shores
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
What is the next Tory leader up against?
Today's Big Question Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick will have to unify warring factions and win back disillusioned voters – without alienating the centre ground
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'We shouldn't be surprised that crypto is back'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Harris makes closing case in huge rally at DC's Ellipse
Speed Read The Democratic nominee asked voters to "turn the page" on Trump's "division" and "chaos"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Why might The Washington Post's nonendorsement matter more?
Today's Big Question The Jeff Bezos-owned publication's last-minute decision to rescind its presidential preference might not tip the electoral scales, but it could be a sign of ominous things to come
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
'A growing number of Americans are voting against their traditional class interests'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published