The White House is failing to address important contextual information when touting its decision to suspend approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals.

President Joe Biden has touted the move as a decisive step on climate change, and White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi has warned that many key allies are moving away from fossil fuels in the long term anyway. He suggested that concerns about negative geopolitical benefits for the United States are overblown. . But there is a strong possibility that global emissions will increase as a result of the ban, or that the administration's decision to take a scalpel to a major LNG export project could damage the U.S. reputation with key allies.

Biden: “In every corner of the country and the world, people are suffering the devastating effects of climate change.'' Said Last Friday, that decision became official. “Today, my administration announced a moratorium on pending liquefied natural gas exports, except in urgent and unforeseen national security emergencies. In other words, we see it as a threat to the survival of our time.'' (Related: Biden team reportedly takes step toward scrapping natural gas project after meeting with 25-year-old TikTok influencer)

'Self-inflicted hurt': Is Biden about to hand the Trump campaign a big political gift? https://t.co/goZQOFIQQN

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 27, 2024

Biden's comments suggest that there are enough problems with U.S. LNG export terminals and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with LNG transportation to warrant a moratorium, or even a possible shutdown. But he did not acknowledge that, as energy sector experts recently told the Daily Caller News Foundation, prospective buyers of U.S. LNG are giving up on finding supply in light of the approval suspension. Instead, they will look elsewhere to meet their needs.

Instead, would-be buyers, whether in Asia or Europe, look to producers such as Russia and Qatar, who are scrambling to fill unexpected gaps in expected supply. That's likely, energy sector experts told DCNF. Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at the Energy Research Institute, told DCNF that the United States produces LNG cleaner than most other countries. In other words, his move to seek buyers from countries that produce LNG in less clean ways is a move that effectively increases emissions.

“The U.S. produces LNG with the lowest environmental impact compared to nearly every country on Earth, so suspending approvals will not reduce emissions at all,” Kish told DCNF. . “Russia and Qatar are clearly in the driver's seat as a result of this decision.”

David Blackmon, who worked in the oil and gas industry for 40 years and now writes and consults on the energy sector, agreed with Kish, saying, “I don't think this measure will do anything to reduce emissions.'' It's very stupid to do that,” he told DCNF.

Natural gas is predicted to remain a major pillar of the global energy mix until 2050, with demand in emerging markets increasing significantly during that time. according to Based on estimates from the International Energy Agency.

Nevertheless, many environmental organizations, almost all of which consider climate change to be a global problem, victory lap After the administration makes a decision.The White House amplified many of those reactions on Saturday. blog postThey include those issued by Climate Defiance, a rival activist group that has been targeting administration officials and electing Democrats for months. environmental activist and young voters It is poised to become a key support base for Biden in the 2024 presidential election.

Beyond the potential climate impact, this decision is poised to have significant geopolitical implications that have not been comprehensively addressed by the White House.

Last Friday, Zaidi said, “Many of our allies and partners that are currently using that LNG are on track to actually withdraw that demand and replace it with things like clean energy and energy efficiency.” said in response to a direct question. whether the decision reduces emissions;

Zaidi's comments appear to be primarily referring to Europe, which has significantly increased its purchases of U.S. LNG in recent years.Many European countries have ambitious goals on climate change and green energy, and the European Union (EU) aim Achieve “net zero” carbon emissions for members by 2050.

But pointing to these long-term goals doesn't tell the whole story for Europe, which has relied on U.S. LNG exports since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. according to Based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). These imports allowed Europe to maintain its political will to support Ukraine in the ongoing war between the two countries. according to Go to Politico.

In this context, the decision to suspend new authorizations can be understood as a “blow to NATO,” Kish told DCNF.

Eurogas, a federation of 101 companies and associations in the European energy market, wrote on January 26: letter Biden expressed “grave concerns” about the approval suspension, highlighting the increased risk of future price fluctuations, especially in the absence of reliable supply forecasts.

“What is certain is that in the current geopolitical environment we are highly dependent on gas produced in the United States,” Olivier Beche, France's representative to the minister responsible for foreign trade, previously said, according to the Eurogas letter. said.

To that end, Europe revival In the construction of natural gas power plants, several countries invested In building an LNG import terminal that could ostensibly complement an American export hub.

The Biden administration may have foreseen this. wide criticism Blackmon spoke to DCNF about the geopolitical implications of this decision, as evidenced by Biden's assertion that there could be an exception for “unforeseen and pressing national security emergencies.” Ta. But the warning is largely symbolic, he said, because emergencies occur much more suddenly than major capital investment projects.

“There is no doubt that that language was put into the statement to deflect any discussion that could be used as criticism of the move. The fact that the White House engaged in such a thought process shows that We understand how dangerous the decision really is,” Blackmon told DCNF. “These are long-term investments that involve billions of dollars and cannot be turned on and off at the whim of John Podesta or Jennifer Granholm. It takes years, not months or years, to raise significant funds. We're talking about at least a year's delay here, but that means financial backers have to commit billions of dollars of capital. Enough time to procure other projects.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.