President Biden Halts New Natural Gas Export Facilities Amid Controversy

Unique Points

• The move was met with praise by climate and environmental activists who have expressed concerns about growing U.S. natural gas exports but criticized by Republicans, some centrist Democrats and players in the energy industry.
• LNG exports more broadly have turned America into a major player in the global energy market
• If Mr Biden staves off the Trumpian challenge, America will keep producing lots of LNG and propel its exports to a level 50% above those of Qatar by 2030

Accuracy

• The pause does not impact existing exports.
• Seven Democrats signed a letter criticizing the administration's recent decision to pause new approvals for natural gas export facilities as it weighs whether to change the criteria it uses to assess them.

Deception (30%)

• The article implies that Democrats are joining Republicans when only a handful of Democrats signed one letter.
• The pause does not affect existing exports but this is not entirely accurate as stated in the article.

Fallacies (85%)

Bias (85%)

• Both of the letters argued that the U.S. should continue to grow its natural gas exports to counter gas coming from Russia.
• The other letter, with more than 150 Republican signatures, was led by House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
• The seven Democrats who signed the letter are Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Lou Correa (Calif.), Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Jim Costa (Calif.) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.

Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)

• . Rachel Frazin reports for The Hill, which received $1.5 million in advertising revenue from ExxonMobil in 2019.

Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)

• . Jared Golden (Maine)
• . Jim Costa (Calif.)
• . Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)

Unique Points

• Joe Biden announced a temporary pause on pending LNG-export projects
• LNG exports from the US have increased significantly in recent years, making it the world's biggest exporter ahead of Qatar and Australia
• The decision to redirect LNG cargoes destined for Asia and elsewhere to Europe was made by private companies with strong official support from Mr Trump's successor, Joe Biden
• LNG exports more broadly have turned America into a major player in the global energy market

Accuracy

• If Mr Biden staves off the Trumpian challenge, America will keep producing lots of LNG and propel its exports to a level 50% above those of Qatar by 2030

Deception (30%)

• The article presents natural gas as not about freedom but about locking economies into continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Fallacies (75%)

• The decisions to redirect LNG cargoes destined for Asia and elsewhere to Europe were made by private companies. But they enjoyed strong official support from Mr Trump’s successor, Joe Biden.

Bias (85%)

Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)

• The article discusses the European Union's (EU) efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but does not mention any financial ties or personal relationships with countries that are major exporters of fossil fuels such as Russia and Qatar.
• The article mentions that Russia is a major player in the fossil fuel industry and has been accused of using its energy resources as a weapon against Ukraine. The Economist does not disclose any conflicts of interest related to this topic.
• The Economist reports on Joe Biden's decision to limit LNG exports, but does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with Qatar or Australia.
• The Economist reports on the energy crisis in Ukraine and mentions that domestic fossil-fuel output is a significant factor in this issue. The article does not disclose any conflicts of interest related to this topic.

Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)

• The Economist has a conflict of interest on the topics of Joe Biden, LNG exports, climate change and fossil fuels. The article mentions that President Biden's administration is taking steps to limit LNG exports in order to address climate change but it does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with companies or organizations involved in the industry.

Unique Points

• The president said the pause on LNG permitting was a part of his sweeping climate agenda.
• Pausing additional LNG export capacity could ultimately bolster Russia, noting that in December 2023 more than 87% of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe, U.K., or Asian markets.
• Actions that slow or halt the ability to export U.S. LNG would weaken global energy security and put these strategic markets at risk.

Accuracy

• The bipartisan lawmakers said they were looking to voice concern with the decision, while the Republican group said it was writing to urge President Biden to end this unnecessary review and expeditiously approve all pending applications.

Deception (50%)

• The author claims pausing additional LNG export capacity could ultimately bolster Russia but fails to provide any evidence or context for this claim. This is deceptive because it presents an unsupported assertion as a fact.
• The title of the article suggests more than 150 Republicans are calling for President Biden to reverse his moratorium on natural gas exports but only five signed a letter demanding action. This is deceptive because it implies that there is widespread support among Republicans when in fact there isn't.

Fallacies (85%)

• The Republican lawmakers — led by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash.,— argue that the moratorium on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects is economically and strategically dangerous. This statement commits a false dilemma fallacy as it presents only two options: either support Biden's position or oppose it completely.
• The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of other politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. For example, when discussing the pause on LNG permitting, the article states that ‒President Biden ordered’ a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects' carbon emissions.” This statement implies that President Biden is an expert in environmental science and has conducted a thorough analysis of the issue. However, there is no evidence to support this claim.
• The author commits an inflammatory rhetoric fallacy when describing activists who have called for a pause in LNG export permits as ‗threatening to hold large protests over the issue.” This statement implies that these activists are violent and dangerous, which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
• The author uses an example of a slippery slope fallacy when arguing that pausing additional LNG export capacity could ultimately bolster Russia. The article states that ‗in December 2023, more than 87% of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe, U.K., or Asian markets.” This statement implies that if the moratorium on LNG export projects continues, Russia will be able to increase its control over these markets and potentially gain an advantage in global energy politics.
• The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing President Biden's pause on LNG permitting as a ‗part of his sweeping climate agenda.” This statement implies that the president is motivated solely by political considerations rather than environmental concerns, which may not be accurate.

Bias (85%)

• `Pausing additional LNG export capacity could ultimately bolster Russia`
• `This is economically and strategically dangerous and unnecessary`
• `Your administration should do everything it can to encourage greater production of clean-burning and reliable natural gas, and to grant the export permits that allow access to global markets`

Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)

• Thomas Catenacci reports on an article that discusses the economic benefits of natural gas exports. The author mentions several politicians including Cathy McMorris Rodgers, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik who are likely to have political ties with those involved in LNG export projects.

Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)

• The article discusses the economic benefits of natural gas exports including $73 billion to the U.S economy by 2040, create upwards of 453,000 American jobs and increase U.S purchasing power by $30 billion.

Unique Points

• Many environmentalists argue that LNG is dirtier than coal
• Researchers studying the carbon content of fuels say that while gas exports contribute more to planetary warming than previously thought, they can still reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal in some instances.
• The idea that LNG is dirtier than coal runs against previous academic and government studies which have found it can reduce planet warming emissions.

Accuracy

• Robert Howarth raised alarms about the climate downside of gas in 2011 when he co-authored a study finding up to 7.9% methane associated with gas production was vented or leaked into the atmosphere, making it a greater contributor to warming than coal over the short term.
• Recent aerial surveys suggest that leakage rates of gas production range widely across different regions in the U.S., with some basins emitting as much as 66% of their output into the atmosphere while others emit only around 0.7%.

Deception (30%)

• The idea that LNG is dirtier than coal runs against previous academic and government studies, which have found that LNG can reduce planet warming emissions.

Fallacies (75%)

Bias (85%)

• The idea is a bombshell in the world of energy politics, where gas has long been touted as having about half as many emissions than coal.

Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)

• The article cites a study that shows LNG is at least 24% worse for the climate than coal.

Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)

• The author reports that $7.9 percent of methane associated with gas production was vented or leaked into the atmosphere.