Should the U.S. lift the moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses?

No

I think that natural gas is a better option than standard gasoline because it is a cleaner burning fossil fuel and it would help the air quality so yes

No, it would undermine climate change goals, and contribute to the continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than investing in renewable energy sources

No, and should put more economic insenstives into exporting green energery and construction of wind solar etc

The question of whether the U.S. should lift the moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses is complex, with strong arguments on both sides. Supporters argue it boosts the economy and supports allies, while opponents raise concerns about climate change and energy prices.
Arguments for lifting the moratorium:
Economic benefits:
Increased LNG exports can lead to job creation, economic growth, and a larger tax base.
Energy security for allies:
Many countries, particularly in Europe, rely on LNG imports for energy security, and the US can play a vital role in providing a stab…  Read morele and reliable supply.
Reduced reliance on other sources:
U.S. LNG exports can help displace dirtier energy sources like coal, particularly in countries with high demand.
Increased domestic production:
Lifting the moratorium could encourage further investment in domestic natural gas production, potentially lowering domestic prices.
Trump administration policy:
The previous administration had already reversed the pause on LNG exports, and a return to that policy is expected if the current administration changes.
Arguments against lifting the moratorium:
Climate change concerns:
The production and transportation of LNG involve greenhouse gas emissions, and some argue that expanding exports could hinder efforts to combat climate change.
Domestic energy prices:
Some argue that increased LNG exports could lead to higher domestic natural gas prices.
Impact on local communities:
The construction and operation of LNG export facilities can have negative impacts on local communities and the environment.
Uncertainty and chilling effect:
The moratorium has created uncertainty for investors and may discourage long-term contracts.
Key Considerations:
The public interest:
.
The Department of Energy must weigh the economic, environmental, and national security implications of LNG exports when making decisions.
Climate change mitigation:
.
The impact of LNG exports on global greenhouse gas emissions is a c

No, LNG is a fossil fuel, and if we allow it to be transported and used, it'll hurt our goals of reducing fossil fuel emissions and mitigating climate change.

Yes, Natural gas must be captured during oil drilling instead of releasing or burning it at the drill sites.

No because than anyone could trade with other countries ruining our business with them an affecting us

No, instead put more restrictions on natural gas and fossil fuel resources and work to decarbonize our energy grid

No. While liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been a bridge fuel for our energy transition, expanding exports risks driving up domestic energy prices and undermining our commitment to clean energy.

Our priority should be investing in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and improving energy efficiency here at home — not increasing exports of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.

No, We should prioritize investment in clean, renewable energy while maintaining existing LNG exports, but not lift the moratorium on new export licenses until environmental and community impacts are fully addressed.

YES... only if combined with transparent, peer-reviewed DOE studies, binding caps on lifecycle emissions, domestic consumer protection mechanisms, community impact assessments, renewables investment ratio, periodic regulatory review, and legal safeguards.

No, natural gas does not have grades in the same way as petrol gasoline and as such is much more consistent between sources.

Yes, but with strategic conditions that serve America's long-term security interests. LNG exports should be approved when they: 1) Strengthen relationships with democratic allies while reducing their dependence on hostile regimes like Russia/Iran, 2) Generate revenue that funds domestic energy innovation and infrastructure, 3) Don't compromise our own energy security or drive up domestic prices significantly. Use export revenues to accelerate research into all alternative energy sources in parallel. This isn't just about fossil fuels - it's about using our current energy advantages to build the bridge to our energy-independent future.

The decision to lift the moratorium on new LNG export licenses requires careful consideration of both the economic benefits and the potential environmental and domestic impacts. While expanding LNG exports may strengthen the U.S. economy and support global energy security, it is crucial to address concerns related to domestic energy prices and environmental sustainability. A balanced approach that includes stringent environmental safeguards and measures to protect domestic consumers may be necessary to ensure that the benefits of increased LNG exports are realized without compromising long-term environmental and economic goals.

Lifting the moratorium could benefit the U.S. economy and global energy security—if it’s accompanied by robust environmental regulations. Ensuring LNG export projects minimize methane leaks, include carbon capture, and align with climate goals is essential. Unrestrained expansion without oversight, however, risks undermining climate efforts and raising consumer prices.

Yes, but at the same time, the United States needs to be energy independent; for the sake of keeping prices gasoline, oil, diesel, electricity, and any element of energy low and stimulating the GDP, the supply chain, good trade, and keeping the unemployment rate low

We should keep in mind of how it will effect environmental issues like climate change, if it's not good and makes things worst then instant no.

I do not support the United States Government in any endeavor regardless of whether it is a positive or negative for anyone because the precedent of them being in control of more is the last thing I would support

Yes, and give exclusive access and sales to the European Union in case if Russia shuts off the natural gas line.

I agree and disagree, as it can be helpful for our cars and houses but can also causes more harm to our environment.

it depends because if it is bad for the people then don't have it but if its good then let people have it

I see from both sides how it could be viewed and I think it depends on the way it is done and who all is effected

No, because I want to preserve the environment, and if they start hurting the environment even more, it will affect other generations.

Yes, for the sake of low energy prices, low inflation, good trade, a good supply chain, low unemployment, and job creation.

Yes, the U.S should lift the moratorium on new liquefied natural gas export licenses with a limitation to still be able to open new markets for natural gas, create jobs, and enhance energy security by strengthening trade relations with allied countries but make sure that it doesn't undermine the climate change goals for the world and contribute to the reliance on fossil fuels.

Yes, but enact a climate law that states they are to be converted into hydrogen or alternative fuel facility after a certain date.

yes because natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel and photochemical smog and other pollutants would disappear

Only to the extent that the current moratorium is not commensurate with the appropriate level of pigouvian influence over that market.

i think that just as there are options of choosing electric or non LNG gas there should be an option to pay more for LNG gas and non LNG gas

In the end gases will be used for a long time. However, burning natural gases is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to carbon emissions.

I believe we have to find a easy middle to get both. We HAVE to help the Climate Change! But EV still effects the earth too

Yes, but this should be regulated and not done constantly. We should come up with a way to counter-act this so climate change is not as bad.

Yes, but the Federal government should also put forth funding for gathering space resources such as asteroids (endlessly abundant) that hold metals and gases used on earth, to preserve earth's natural nonrenewable resources.

This should be a temporary lift while the country continues to find renewable energy sources to combat climate change. Once we have a percentage of renewable energy, then we should reduce using fossil fuels and possible explore ways to improvise fossil fuel usage so its environmentally friendly while using it to continue economic growth.

No, we should be focusing on greener technology for energy and we should keep our natural gas here in America.

No – Exporting more LNG increases global carbon emissions and encourages fossil fuel dependency. “Woe to those who build their houses by unrighteousness” (Jeremiah 22:13). Instead of fueling other nations’ pollution, we should lead them by example into cleaner, God-honoring energy stewardship.

Yes, for the sake of lowering energy prices, lowering inflation, growing trade, job creation, a low unemployment rate, and growing the supply chain.