New Report Alleges Five Major U.S. LNG Export Projects Fail Climate Test, Posing Financial and Environmental Risks
Key Insights
A new report by Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International asserts that five major U.S. LNG export projects on the Gulf Coast fail a critical "climate test."
The analysis indicates these projects would increase greenhouse gas emissions, displace renewable energy, and drive up global gas demand, contrary to industry claims.
The report highlights significant public health and ecosystem impacts already present along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast due to existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
It warns investors and governments of the financial and climate risks, suggesting future administrations could revoke export authorizations for these projects.
A recent report co-published by Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International asserts that five major U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects proposed for the Gulf Coast fail a crucial "climate test," casting doubt on their environmental compatibility and financial viability. Released on July 9, 2025, the analysis targets Venture Global CP2, Cameron LNG Phase II, Sabine Pass Stage V, Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Midscale 8-9, and Freeport LNG Expansion, with all but one still awaiting a final investment decision. Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Midscale 8-9 announced a positive final investment decision on June 24, 2025, shortly before the report's release.
The report contends that these projects, if built, would significantly increase global greenhouse gas emissions, displace renewable energy development, and drive up natural gas demand. Andres Chang, Senior Research Specialist at Greenpeace USA and lead author, stated, "What we found was crystal clear – any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate." He emphasized that existing infrastructure growth along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast has already led to substantial public health and ecosystem impacts, threatening local communities.
Contrary to industry assertions, the study indicates that even with efforts to mitigate methane venting and leaks during gas drilling, transportation, and liquefaction, these projects would not achieve "climate neutrality." Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International Research Director and co-author, explained, "Focusing the Department of Energy’s model on individual US LNG terminals that are yet to be built, we found that they all result in increased greenhouse gas emissions because they pollute the climate, displace renewable energy, and drive up gas demand."
The findings introduce a new layer of uncertainty for these capital-intensive projects, particularly as the report suggests that future U.S. administrations could potentially revoke export authorizations previously granted. This adds to a growing body of evidence questioning the long-term financial prudence for insurers, investors, and purchasers of U.S. LNG. Dr. Dakota Raynes, Senior Manager of Research, Policy, and Data at Earthworks, cautioned that countries with climate commitments, such as those in the EU, should be "very wary of the climate cost of importing US LNG," especially amidst U.S. pressure to increase imports.
James Hiatt, founder and director of For a Better Bayou, highlighted the broader societal costs, stating, "Fossil fuel dependency has long externalized its true costs, forcing communities to bear the burden of pollution, sickness, and economic instability." The report underscores the systemic nature of these harms and advocates for a transition towards sustainable energy systems, challenging the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure backed by significant private and public financing.