Washington, DC — A new analysis, Permit to Kill, released today [Aug. 14, 2024] by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA shows that permitted emissions from both currently operating and planned LNG terminals are estimated to have a major price tag for communities’ public health. The briefing, which adds to the mounting body of evidence showing that LNG exports are not in the public interest, lays out specific steps the Department of Energy (DOE) should take to halt, and ultimately deny, the approval of new LNG projects.
The full report is available for review here.
Greenpeace USA Senior Research Specialist, and report co-author, Andres Chang said: “This study shows that any discussion of LNG exports that ignores the deadly air pollution from LNG terminals is missing the boat. The bizarre rush to over-build methane gas export capacity is not only a climate and an economic mistake – it is also a public health disaster. Our research shows that air pollution from continuing the LNG buildout would hit fenceline communities the hardest, but would also be carried downwind to further away cities like Dallas and New Orleans, causing childhood asthma onset, lost work and school days, and premature death.”
Key findings from the report include:
- Direct air pollution from currently operating LNG export terminals is estimated to cause 60 premature deaths and $957 million in total health costs per year. [1]
- If all the planned terminals and expansion projects are built, these numbers would increase to 149 premature deaths and $2.33 billion in health costs per year.
- By 2050, the same permitted air pollutants from currently operating LNG export terminals alone are expected to yield 2,020 premature deaths and $28.7 billion in total health costs. [2]
- There is a strong overlap between areas that are already experiencing climate harms and the areas slated to suffer the worst air pollution impacts. At the national level, Black and Hispanic Americans would respectively experience air pollution from LNG terminals at 151–170% and 110–129% the rate of white Americans, if all projects slated for 2030 are built. [3]
- If DOE ceases to approve new LNG export applications, it would save an estimated 707 to 1,110 lives and avoid $9.88 to $15.1 billion in health costs through 2050, by comparison to a scenario where all projects are built.
Sierra Club Energy Campaigns Analyst, and report co-author, Johanna Heureaux-Torres, said: “This briefing provides a new compelling and distressing data point in the long list of reasons to stop approving LNG export applications. It is shocking that regulators do not already consider deadly pollution impacts in their environmental analyses of gas export projects and related infrastructure. DOE and other federal agencies should listen to the science and frontline communities, and develop more robust controls on the cumulative impacts of air pollution from these high polluting projects. The health of communities and the climate depends on the folks in charge to stand up and do the right thing based on the facts of the situation on the ground.”
In January, the Biden-Harris administration and DOE announced a pause pending approvals of LNG export applications while DOE updates the economic and environmental studies that are used to inform the public interest determination.
James Hiatt, Director of For a Better Bayou, said: “This analysis underscores the severe impact on vulnerable communities, particularly low-income and communities of color in Louisiana. For far too long, the extractive industry has inflicted suffering and death on these communities. It is imperative that the Department of Energy takes this opportunity to protect our communities by halting the approval of new LNG export applications. The evidence is clear: LNG exports are not in the public interest and pose significant health and environmental threats. We urge the DOE to prioritize the well-being of our communities and the environment.”
Dr. Robert D. Bullard, Director of the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice and Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning and Environmental Policy at Texas Southern University, said: “The Permit to Kill report underscores what residents in frontline communities have been saying for decades – it’s time for DOE to stop using permitted emissions from operating and planned LNG export terminals as a license to pollute our most vulnerable people and places.
“DOE now has the opportunity and moral responsibility to correct its flawed approach, methodology, thinking, and assumptions that follow the dominant pattern and allow Black, Hispanic, and low-income residents to be overburdened with health threatening air pollution. Our communities matter.”
Authorizations of these applications are a practical requirement for LNG terminals to operate [4]. DOE has a record of universally approving them on the basis of flawed reasoning but now has the opportunity and imperative to pursue a new direction.
###
Notes:
This analysis does not consider the likely public health harms associated with air pollution from infrastructure upstream or downstream of LNG terminals, hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, the impacts from explosions or other emergencies, or the climate impacts of LNG’s life cycle emissions.
[1] Estimates of premature deaths and total health costs presented here use the Environmental Protection Agency’s CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Health Impacts Screening and Mapping Tool “high estimate.” COBRA natively outputs high and low estimates that reflect uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and adult premature deaths based on the results of two different cohort studies. Both the high and low estimates are presented in the full Permit to Kill report.
[2] These figures rise to 4,470 and $62.2 billion respectively in a scenario where all planned projects are built.
[3] The range of percentages reflects different values for ozone (lower number) and PM2.5 (higher number).
[4] LNG terminals can export to Free Trade Association (FTA) countries without export authorization by DOE but export authorization to non-FTA countries is widely considered a practical requirement for LNG projects to reach operation due to global LNG market conditions. No projects have reached operation without non-FTA export authorization.
Source: “New research from Greenpeace USA and Sierra Club links air pollution from LNG terminals to major public health costs,” Aug. 14, 2024 Sierra Club press release.
Corresponding, connected home-page-featured image: Energy Information Administration