The Biden administration’s decision to pause new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals has been criticized for relying on misleading scientific data. Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk, in a written testimony to Congress, defended the policy by pointing to billion-dollar disasters (BDDs) and projections based on a “worst-case” emissions scenario. However, critics argue that both statistics are misleading and questionable.
Turk’s testimony used the number of BDD events recorded in 2019 and 2023, comparing 14 natural disasters causing damages over $1 billion in 2019 to 28 such instances in 2023. However, using BDD events as a proxy for meteorological conditions is misleading due to increased population and asset density in vulnerable areas. Additionally, Turk cited climate change projections that rely on the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) scenario, which has been criticized for serious flaws.
Energy sector experts argue that the decision to halt LNG export terminal approvals will fail to reduce global emissions and empower foreign production, particularly in Russia and Qatar. The Department of Energy and the White House have not responded to requests for comment.
