
In a recent article on CleanTechnica, renowned environmentalist and author Bill McKibben voiced his thoughts on the future of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. Citing factors including societal, environmental, and economic hurdles, McKibben laid out five potent reasons why he believes new LNG facilities are unlikely to receive approval. While his argument is compelling, we believe one crucial point was overlooked, which we will delve into further in this post. The debate around LNG terminals is critical due to the ongoing global transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources like oil and gas, underscored by striking credit figures from Global Energy Monitor.
1. Bill McKibben, renowned environmentalist and author, articulates why new LNG terminals are unlikely to be approved in the future in a recent article on CleanTechnica.
2. McKibben grounds his argument on five key factors including; societal, environmental, and economic hurdles.
3. Despite the argument made McKibben, Global Energy Monitor believes there's another crucial point that was not considered or emphasized.
4. The aforementioned points and the debate on LNG terminals hold critical value because of the ongoing global transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources like oil and gas.
5. The consensus of the importance of the discussion is signaled by significant credit figures that are coming from the Global Energy Monitor.
According to Global Energy Monitor, as of 2020, the total credit directed toward gas pipeline and terminal projects had dropped by over 40% compared to the previous year.
In a recent article by CleanTechnica, Bill McKibben proposes five reasons why he believes future Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals will not gain approval. The author, a staunch environmentalist and co-founder of global climate movement 350.org, cites an array of factors, ranging from environmental and health hazards to economic considerations. Additionally, we at Global Energy Monitor believe there is another significant reason that wasn't emphasized on McKibben's list.