How do communities lose out when governments invest in fossil fuel facilities instead of community needs?
That’s the question at the heart of a new Sierra Club report released Monday titled “The People Always Pay: Tax Cuts Force Gulf Coast to Subsidize LNG Industry,” the report says. details the extent to which the export market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) is expanding. , could benefit from billions of dollars in tax cuts in Louisiana and Texas, with the proceeds invested in public infrastructure, schools and other priorities.
Over the past decade, since the export embargo was lifted by the Obama administration in 2015, the U.S. has transitioned from an importer to a bulk exporter of LNG, but a recent study from Cornell University found that it has had a worse impact than coal. It became. Critics warn that investment in LNG will harm the environment and hinder the transition to a green economy. Export terminals are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, primarily affecting poor coastal areas in Louisiana and Texas, according to the Sierra Club report.
“The huge tax breaks given to multi-billion dollar LNG projects (millions of dollars per job) are staggering. produced to pollute water and cause further suffering to communities already suffering from climate change. “It pays for industry. Coastal communities are a vital source of income for schools, infrastructure, health care, emergency services, and coastal restoration and protection.” said James Hyatt, a resident of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. People appearing in the report.
The report is based on interviews with community members and takes a closer look at the major tax relief programs each LNG export project benefits from.
21.6 billion for nine LNG export terminals in operation, planned, or under construction under two Louisiana tax abatement programs, the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) and another called Quality Jobs. Dollars were offered. For example, in Cameron Parish, where Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG facility is located, the company is scheduled to receive $4.9 billion in ITEP grants from 2012 to 2040. In total, Cameron Parish residents stand to lose $14.9 billion in revenue from 2012 to 2040 due to ITEP subsidies for various LNG export terminals.
The $3.8 billion lost to investments in fossil fuel facilities could go to schools, and an additional $2.4 billion to health services, the report’s authors said.
The report also details how the revitalization of the LNG market is negatively impacting the local economy.
For example, Cameron Parish and neighboring Calcasieu Parish are experiencing increased ship traffic due to the rapid development of petrochemical facilities in the area. Cameron Harbor was once the nation’s largest producer of seafood, but dredging and erosion from shipping traffic has made it difficult for aquatic life, according to the report. “In 2005, Cameron Parish had a fleet of 250 fishing boats, but now there are only a few dozen fish left, and only 12 to 15 people are on the water each day, leaving other fishermen to earn a living. Some fishermen claim they are forced to earn additional income to supplement their work.
The report found that grassroots organizations in Louisiana found that while ITEP applications promised more than 121,000 new jobs from 1998 to 2017, companies actually hired more than 26,500 new jobs. The company emphasizes that it found that it experienced a net loss.
The impact on the community is not just economic. In Texas’ Golden Triangle, a highly industrialized petrochemical corridor that includes the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, residents are breathing in contaminated vapors, increasing potential health risks, according to the report. It is said that there is.
“Among other pollutants, refineries produce benzene, a carcinogen that can cause leukemia and severe bone marrow damage. “An estimated 1 in 5,000 people in the Triangle have an increased lifetime cancer risk,” the report states.
Both Louisiana and Texas have discouraged projects from being built at all, given the environmental degradation that further expansion would certainly cause, as well as the promise of significant tax breaks for projects that are not yet operational. He claims that doing so is “exactly what it is.” We need it to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. ”
