{"id":123014,"date":"2024-02-15T15:25:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-15T19:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=123014"},"modified":"2024-02-16T13:51:44","modified_gmt":"2024-02-16T17:51:44","slug":"biden-natural-gas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/biden-natural-gas\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden’s Natural Gas Suspension: Environment vs. Economy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What are the environmental consequences of natural gas exports? How is the Biden administration tackling the trade-off between increased natural gas exports and climate change goals<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biden administration has temporarily suspended approval of natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries. As Democrats prepare for the 2024 presidential election, they must balance the economic benefits of increasing natural gas exports with fulfilling climate change pledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s a look at the pros and cons of Biden’s natural gas suspension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Biden’s Natural Gas Conundrum<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a policy maneuver aimed at safeguarding the environment, in January the Biden administration temporarily suspended approval of liquefied natural gas exports<\/a> to non-free trade agreement countries. The move comes as Biden prepares for the 2024 presidential election and attempts to balance increasing natural gas exports with aggressive climate change goals.\u00a0Here’s a look at Biden’s natural gas suspension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Liquefied natural gas (LNG), which consists of methane<\/a>, burns more cleanly than coal<\/a>, making it a seemingly more eco-friendly alternative<\/a>. But methane presents considerable environmental challenges<\/a>, including that its emissions are 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in their initial 20 years in the atmosphere. It can also leak at any stage, from production to use in the home. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expanding LNG exports presents a dilemma for the Biden administration, which has also committed to meeting ambitious climate goals. These include reducing emissions by 50% by 2030<\/a>, achieving 100% carbon-free power by 2035, and stimulating green infrastructure and job growth, with the broader aim of positioning the US as the global climate change leader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Balancing Climate Goals With Gas Production\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As Democrats prepare for the 2024 presidential election, they face the critical challenge of balancing the economic benefits of increasing natural gas exports against the cost of fulfilling climate change pledges<\/a>. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, the White House has defended its increased fossil fuel production and export as a <\/strong>transitional necessity<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>that supports the US and allies\u2019 shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Despite these justifications, the president’s tightrope act is muddied by a host of complications:<\/p>\n\n\n\n