A new report from Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International claims that five U.S. LNG export projects “fail the climate test.” It’s a bold headline, and one that falls apart quickly under even modest scrutiny.

The full report leans heavily on worst-case scenarios, one-sided modeling, and sweeping generalizations to argue that any LNG development is incompatible with climate goals. What it leaves out is everything else: energy security, economic benefits, and the actual global role U.S. LNG plays in reducing emissions and displacing carbon-intensive fuels abroad.

What the Report Gets Wrong

The report targets five Gulf Coast LNG export projects: Venture Global CP2, Cameron LNG Phase II, Sabine Pass Stage V, Cheniere Corpus Christi Midscale 8-9, and the Freeport LNG Expansion. Greenpeace argues that all of these projects would result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions,  even under “climate-conscious” assumptions.

Lead author Andres Chang, Senior Research Specialist at Greenpeace USA, puts it bluntly:

“Any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate…if built, these projects would put global climate goals even further out of reach.”

But that’s not what the data, or global trends show. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy’s own 2024 LNG Export Study found that LNG exports do not lead to a discernible increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. As  DOE Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tala Goudarzi stated:

“The 2024 study confirms what our nation always knew — LNG supports our economy, strengthens our allies, and enhances national security.”

As EID had previously noted about the 2024 LNG Export Study, expanding U.S. LNG exports would help displace coal and biomass, particularly in Asia and Europe, while boosting jobs, GDP and trade.

LNG is a Global Necessity, Not a Domestic Footnote

The Greenpeace report also  overlooks how deeply integrated U.S. LNG is in today’s global energy systems. In 2024, the United States became the world’s top LNG exporter. Countries like Japan, India, and Indonesia are actively turning to U.S. LNG to replace higher-emitting fuels and ensure grid reliability. In fact, earlier this year, the United States, Japan, and South Korea issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to expanding LNG trade, citing both energy security and decarbonization objectives.

Calls to halt U.S. LNG projects ignore these global realities. Blocking projects like CP2 or Cameron Phase II won’t advance renewables deployment. It will force energy-hungry nations to continue relying on carbon-intensive fuels.

Debunking the “Climate Test”

The report attempts to use DOE’s own modeling against the agency’s conclusions, citing scenarios where LNG expansion displaces renewables and increases gas demand. But those assumptions are based on global economic behavior well beyond U.S. control, and ignore a vital truth: without LNG, the alternatives are worse.

Countries aren’t going to suddenly flip a switch to wind and solar overnight. In reality, they’ll fall back to legacy fuels.

The report also overlooks U.S. technological and innovation capacities.  U.S. LNG producers are investing in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), electrified liquefaction, and advanced leak detection. Many projects already exceed federal environmental standards, voluntarily reporting and reducing emissions across the supply chain.

Jobs, Tax Revenue, and Local Investment

Greenpeace also claims LNG projects are “risky investments” that take decades to pay off and may be rolled back by future administrations. But that risk narrative ignores the economic opportunity LNG represents – both domestically and globally.

According to industry estimates:

• S. LNG has supported more than 273,000 jobs to date.
• These projects are expected to generate $166 billion in tax revenue by 2040.
• The industry improves America’s trade balance and strengthens global partnerships – something few other energy resources can claim today.

Bottom Line: Once again, LNG opponents are framing this debate through a narrow lens that disregards the bigger picture. Reports like this ignore critical context, cherry-pick assumptions, and sidestep the real-world consequences of abandoning LNG development. U.S. LNG is not failing any test. It is a critical tool for reducing emissions today, expanding access to affordable energy, and stabilizing global markets in a time of extreme volatility.