The expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports is responsible for scores of premature deaths and nearly $1bn in annual health costs, according to a new report from the green groups Greenpeace and Sierra Club.
The report links air pollution from LNG export terminals to an estimated 60 premature deaths and $957m in total health costs each year, and found that if all planned and proposed terminals come online, those numbers would shoot up to 149 premature deaths and $2.33bn.
The analysis comes seven months after the Biden administration froze all new LNG export approvals until energy regulators update their approval process to consider the climate impact of new proposals. Federal officials are currently defending the pause in court.
Officials should take this opportunity to consider the health effects of LNG terminals in addition to their climate toll, the authors say.
“We often hear about the LNG buildout impacting climate, which, of course, is true and devastating,” said Johanna Heureaux-Torres, energy campaigns analyst for the Sierra Club and report co-author. “But there’s also public health ramifications, often for communities who are already overburdened.”
The report, which Greenpeace and Sierra Club submitted last month to the Department of Energy and made public on Wednesday, aims to quantify the harms of LNG terminals on communities living near them.
The US only began exporting LNG in 2016, but the country is now the world’s largest such exporter.
There are nine LNG export terminals currently operating in the lower 48 United States. Six additional projects are under construction, seven have received authorization but have not yet started construction and 10 have permit applications that are pending approval. The authors examined the permits or permit applications for all 32 projects, most of which are clustered along the Gulf of Mexico.
Using an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment and mapping tool, they calculated the health damage attributable to those projects’ permitted air emissions. Then, they totaled up the health costs of three different scenarios: one where all 32 proposed projects come online, reflecting “a policy of returning to unrestricted LNG export approvals”; another where only currently authorized projects come online and no new permits are issued; and a third where only currently operating projects are kept online.
Currently operating LNG export terminals alone will cause 2,020 premature deaths and $28.7bn in health costs by 2050, projections found. Under a full buildout scenario, those numbers rise to 4,470 and $62.2bn.
“We found those numbers stunning,” said Andres Chang, senior research specialist at Greenpeace who co-authored the study.
These impacts are disproportionately felt by Black and Latino populations who most often live near LNG facilities, the authors note. If all proposed and planned projects are built, Black Americans would experience air pollution from LNG terminals at 151% to 170% and Latino Americans 110% to 129% compared with the rate for white Americans.
Though these numbers are “severe and doomsday”, they are also “certainly underestimates” because LNG facilities sometimes exceed their permitted emission limits, said Naomi Yoder, a data manager at the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice who did not work on the study.
“We also know that there are vast impacts of air pollution upstream and downstream of the export terminals, and that additional hazardous air pollutants emitted by LNG export terminals are not accounted for in the study,” they said.
The study also looked at the impacts of individual LNG projects. The most harmful project, the authors found, is Cheniere’s Sabine Pass LNG terminal in southern Louisiana.
“The operational parts of this terminals permitted emissions result in an estimated 24 premature deaths per year, and the planned expansion would add around another four, if fully built,” said Chang on a Wednesday press call.
A separate analysis published on Tuesday by the policy group Evergreen Action found that if the US approved all pending LNG projects, gas exports would quadruple. Another new report from Sierra Club and the environmental justice groups For a Better Bayou and the Vessel Project shows that LNG expansion has inflated Louisiana energy bills.
A May study from the Bullard Center also found that state agencies with authorization from the EPA greenlit air permits for volumes of emissions that, according to EPA tools, could be deadly.
“This study adds to the already significant body of evidence about how LNG harms community health along the supply chain,” said Melissa Lem, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, which along with a nurses association is leading a campaign calling on British Columbia to stop building out LNG infrastructure. Lem did not work on the study.
Federal regulators have an opportunity to curb these harms, advocates note. By refusing to approve any pending LNG export applications, they could save an estimated 707 to 1,110 lives and avoid $9.88bn to $15.1bn in health costs through 2050, compared with a scenario where all projects are built, the new analysis found.
“Every regulatory agency that has the responsibility and the directive to protect people and communities? They have got to start actually doing that,” James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, told reporters on Wednesday. He lives and works in south-west Louisiana, which has three operating LNG facilities and has seen proposals for seven more.
“They are not using their powers to protect people, and instead are doing the bidding of large corporations that are only concerned about shareholder value and profit making,” he said.
