ENB Pub Note: The Biden Administration’s burying a report with facts that prove LNG is not harmful to the environment so they could ban LNG exports is only a part of the vast story. The fact that Speaker Johnson was talking with Joe Biden and did not know he even banned LNG exports to our allies, whom he promised all of the LNG they could use, is the underlying giant ugly baby in the room. Who was running the country making all of these left-wing energy policies based on fearmongering and emotions rather than facts?
Biden officials buried a report contradicting their LNG export pause, which found no impact on emissions or energy prices.
There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. [emphasis, links added]
The suggestion is that this was a knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions.
The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023.
It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions.
Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their experts.
The report was finished while Biden was still running for reelection and would have likely enraged environmentalists.
The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers.
Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger of environmental and economic impacts.
Read rest at Jonathan Turley
Energy News Beat