Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been cooled to liquid form for easier transport. Proponents argue that lifting the moratorium would boost the U.S. economy by opening new markets for natural gas, create jobs, and enhance energy security by strengthening trade relations with allied countries. Opponents argue that exporting LNG could increase domestic gas prices, undermine climate change goals, and contribute to the continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than investing in renewable energy sources.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@B4KLCSB3mos3MO
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
@B2LWRQNIndependence5mos5MO
No, it would undermine climate change goals, and contribute to the continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than investing in renewable energy sources
@B5Y825BIndependent2 days2D
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.
@ProudJew 4 days4D
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.
@B5TJSXD3wks3W
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.
@B42KFGT3mos3MO
Yes, and give exclusive access and sales to the European Union in case if Russia shuts off the natural gas line.
@B3ZYM5D4mos4MO
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
@B45H84X3mos3MO
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
@B4GL4ZH 3mos3MO
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.
@B4CSJFP3mos3MO
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.
@B38VJVQ4mos4MO
yes because natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel and photochemical smog and other pollutants would disappear
@B2KK2V3Peace and Freedom5mos5MO
I agree and disagree, as it can be helpful for our cars and houses but can also causes more harm to our environment.
@B2KHRNMIndependent5mos5MO
it depends because if it is bad for the people then don't have it but if its good then let people have it
@B2KC7T8 5mos5MO
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.
@B2JTBQMWomen’s Equality5mos5MO
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
@B2JR6DQ5mos5MO
No, because I want to preserve the environment, and if they start hurting the environment even more, it will affect other generations.
@B4D6KHP3mos3MO
Yes, for the sake of low energy prices, low inflation, good trade, a good supply chain, low unemployment, and job creation.
@B3RVSDV4mos4MO
Yes, but enact a climate law that states they are to be converted into hydrogen or alternative fuel facility after a certain date.
@B2KW47V 5mos5MO
Only to the extent that the current moratorium is not commensurate with the appropriate level of pigouvian influence over that market.
@B2KM8VN5mos5MO
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
@B2JWSHXIndependent5mos5MO
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
@B2JTH2RRepublican5mos5MO
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.
@B2K8R3ZIndependent5mos5MO
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.
@B2JMZRQ5mos5MO
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.
@B5TJPMG3wks3W
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.
@B4CFVS5Republican3mos3MO
Yes, for the sake of lowering energy prices, lowering inflation, growing trade, job creation, a low unemployment rate, and growing the supply chain.
No, we should be focusing on greener technology for energy and we should keep our natural gas here in America.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.