Exporting Emissions: The Hidden Cost of U.S. Energy Policy—Yet Another Scientist Sign-On Letter
U.S. fossil fuel exports undermine global climate goals and perpetuate energy disparities
The Center for Biological Diversity is circulating a "Dear Representative" sign-on letter from U.S. scientists, urging Congress to reject the proposed Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA).
As John Fleming writes for the Center:
This federal bill, which has the stated goal of accelerating the deployment of renewable energy and transmission projects, also calls for further fossil fuel lease sales and infrastructure approvals, culminating in continued LNG, crude oil, refined petroleum, and coal exports. The emissions savings from renewable energy and transmission improvements are erased if the fossil fuels they supplant are merely exported and burned elsewhere. Yet, U.S. fossil fuel exports continue trending upward, indicating that our emissions footprint is indeed being exported.
In today’s world, importing goods and services is impossible without exporting emissions. Consumption implies emissions. It should be obvious, but for many, it’s not. Producing reliable estimates is not straightforward, but the last time I checked, about 50 percent of U.S. emissions were linked to imported goods and services.
To drill down quantitatively into U.S. fossil fuel exports, consider the bar chart below, which presents data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Spanning from 1951 through 2023, the chart highlights the rising trend in U.S. energy exports, including fossil fuels.
The current flow of exported energy is the equivalent of about 1,000 gigawatt power plants—close to one-third of total yearly average U.S. power consumption. For context, the U.S. accounts for 20 percent of global power consumption, despite being home to only 4 percent of the world’s population. To maintain this five-fold disproportionality, the U.S. remains, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously called it in 1967, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”
Meanwhile, in today’s New York Times newsletter The Morning, David Leonhardt explores “a report that details the threats faced by the U.S.” The report was issued by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.
The first sentence of the report—released over the summer by a bipartisan, congressionally appointed commission—was blunt: “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.”
The report continued, stating that the nation “is not prepared today.”
Leonhardt, true to his role as a certified imperial scribe, echoes Jane Harman, the former Democratic congresswoman from California and the commission’s chair, claiming that “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made energy more expensive.” Of course, Leonhardt neglects to inquire about the U.S. sabotage of Nord Stream 2 and how that conveniently boosted American energy exports—along with the global cost of energy.
While these might not be the best arguments for a sign-on letter intended for a broad base of scientists, it’s hard to tackle the climate catastrophe without acknowledging who the real predators are.
There is much more to be said about how bipartisan energy policy over the past decade has enabled the fracking industry and LNG exports in particular. I hope this brief summary offers greater insight into energy geopolitics and, if you're a scientist, encourages you to sign the Center for Biological Diversity's letter, available via this this link.
https://www.youtube.com/@NatureBatsLast I don't think most people appreciate the "abrupt" part of climate change. We have much video evidence of extreme weather events from floods to tornadoes and drought with high temperatures. Growing food in the presence of large swings in temperature and moisture becomes more challenging and maybe unsustainable.