Liquefied natural gas pollution causes 60 premature deaths each year in the US – report

Expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports are responsible for many premature deaths and nearly $1 billion in annual health care costs, according to a new report from green organizations Greenpeace and Sierra Club.

The report links air pollution from LNG export terminals to an estimated 60 premature deaths and $957 million in total health care costs annually. If all planned and proposed terminals come into operation, those numbers would rise to 149 premature deaths and $2.33 billion.

The analysis comes seven months after the Biden administration froze all new LNG purchases. export approvals until energy regulators update their approval process to account for the climate impact of new proposals. Federal officials are currently defend the break in the courtroom.

According to the authors, officials should take this opportunity to consider the health impacts of LNG terminals in addition to the climate impacts.

“We often hear that LNG buildout has climate consequences, which is true and devastating,” said Johanna Heureaux-Torres, an energy campaign analyst for the Sierra Club and a co-author of the report. “But there are also public health consequences, often for communities that are already overburdened.”

The report, which Greenpeace and Sierra Club filed with the Department of Energy last month and was made public on Wednesday, aims to quantify the damage LNG terminals do to the communities living near them.

The US only began exporting LNG in 2016, but the country is now the world’s largest exporter.

There are currently nine LNG export terminals in operation in the lower 48 United States. Six additional projects are under construction, seven have been permitted but have not yet begun construction, and 10 have permit applications pending approval. The authors examined the permits or permit applications for all 32 projects, most of which are clustered along the Gulf of Mexico.

Use of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment and mapping toolthey calculated the health damage attributable to the projects’ permitted air emissions. They then tallied the health costs of three different scenarios: one in which all 32 proposed projects come online, reflecting “a policy of returning to unlimited LNG export approvals”; another scenario in which only currently authorized projects come online and no new permits are issued, and a third where only currently running projects are kept online.

Current LNG export terminals alone will cause 2,020 premature deaths and $28.7 billion in health care costs by 2050, projections show. Under a full build-out scenario, those numbers rise to 4,470 and $62.2 billion.

“We found those numbers astonishing,” said Andres Chang, a senior research specialist at Greenpeace and co-author of the study.

These impacts are felt disproportionately by Black and Latino populations who are most likely to live near LNG facilities, the authors note. If all proposed and planned projects were implemented, Black Americans would experience 151% to 170% of air pollution from LNG terminals and Latino Americans 110% to 129% compared to the rate for white Americans.

While these numbers are “serious and ominous,” they are also “certainly underestimates,” as LNG facilities sometimes exceed their permitted emissions 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 significant impacts from air pollution upstream and downstream of export terminals, and the study did not account for additional hazardous air pollutants emitted from LNG export terminals,” the researchers said.

The study also looked at the impact of individual LNG projects. The most damaging project, the authors found, is Cheniere’s Sabine Pass LNG terminal in southern Louisiana.

“The operating components of these terminals allow emissions that are estimated to lead to 24 premature deaths per year, and the planned expansion would add another four if fully completed,” Chang said at a news conference on Wednesday.

A separate analysis published on Tuesday by the policy group Evergreen Action found that if the US approved all the ongoing LNG projects, gas exports would quadruple. Another new report from the Sierra Club and environmental organizations For a Better Bayou and the Vessel Project show that LNG expansion has increased energy bills in Louisiana.

A May study The Bullard Center also found that government agencies, with EPA approval, have issued air pollution permits for levels of emissions that EPA tools say could be lethal.

“This study adds to the already considerable evidence base on how LNG harms community health throughout the supply chain,” said Melissa Lem, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, which is leading a study with a nurses’ association campaign calling on British Columbia to halt construction of LNG infrastructure. Lem did not work on the study.

Federal regulators have the ability to limit this damage, advocates note. By refusing to approve all pending LNG export applications, they could save an estimated 707 to 1,110 lives and save $9.88 billion to $15.1 billion in health care costs through 2050, compared with a scenario in which all projects get built, the new analysis found.

“Any regulatory agency that has the responsibility and the direction to protect people and communities? They really need to do that,” James Hiatt, executive director of For a Better Bayou, told reporters Wednesday. He lives and works in southwest Louisiana, where three LNG facilities are in operation and proposals have been filed for seven more.

“They are not using their powers to protect people, but instead doing what big corporations do, which are only interested in shareholder value and profits,” he said.