Over half a million people from across the country just demanded a future free from liquefied “natural” gas (LNG). And behind every name, a reason.
Their ask was a straightforward one, grounded in environmental justice and science: Before recklessly greenlighting unnecessary LNG projects, the Department of Energy (DOE) should first take into account the grave climate, health, and economic harms of potential LNG terminals on the public.
Put yourself in the shoes of community members living in the shadows of pollution-belching plants or under the threat of newly proposed terminals; in the labs of public health advocates who have long-studied the links between fossil fuel extraction and sicker bodies and minds; in the classrooms of economists, who know more LNG export terminals will not bring energy independence to the U.S. They will all tell you what nearly 600,000 people told DOE and our elected officials: More LNG is not the answer.
Just ask:
- Roishetta Sibley Ozane, an environmental justice leader and founder of the Louisiana-based Vessel Project,
- James Hiatt former refinery worker, now climate resilience specialist, and founder of For a Better Bayou,
- Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota and public health specialist, and
- Dr. Svitlana Romanko, founder and executive director of Razom We Stand, a Ukrainian advocacy group calling for a clean energy transition to replace the fossil-fueled war.
Click on their names to jump to their stories. Together, they represent a handful of the many diverse voices speaking out against LNG expansion and calling on DOE to act. Hear why, in their own words.