We’re leading an all-out national mobilization to defeat the climate crisis.

Join our work today to help us build a thriving and just clean energy future. 

Donate

We’re leading an all-out national mobilization to defeat the climate crisis.

Join our work today to help us build a thriving and just clean energy future. 

Communities Tell DOE: No More LNG

Why 4 leading voices are among the half million demanding an end to LNG expansion

Close ups of 4 LNG activists: Roishetta Sibley Ozane, James Hiatt, Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni, Svitlana Romanko
© 2024 Andrew Hartnett/Evergreen Action. Photos: Roishetta Sibley Ozane, James Hiatt, Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni, Serhiy Horichok

Over half a million people from across the country just demanded a future free from liquified “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:

 

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. 

 


 

Roishetta leading a climate protest in front of a BlackRock building.

Roishetta Sibley Ozane

Founder, Vessel Project

“We are asserting our right to live free from the toxic threats that come with LNG facilities.”

For the predominantly Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities living steps and breaths away from LNG terminals, the health consequences are undeniable. Forced to inhale toxic air, residents suffer from burning and irritated airways, as well as more serious illnesses like cancer, kidney and heart disease, and asthma. 

“Making the LNG pause permanent is crucial for me and my community because it directly ties into our right to a healthy environment and a safe future for our children,” says Roishetta Ozane. “As a frontline environmental justice advocate, I see firsthand how our community has been disproportionately affected by pollution and industrial activities. My own children suffer from health issues due to this environmental racism, and I won’t allow it to continue.”

 

James Hiatt with their arms crossed.

James Hiatt

Founder, For a Better Bayou

“As someone born and raised in Southwest Louisiana, where I’m raising my own children, the preservation of our wetlands, air, and water is deeply personal.”

James Hiatt’s experience echoes Roishetta’s and many others who call the Gulf South home. He has seen firsthand the devastating impacts of nearby LNG projects and wants a better future for his children and the next generation. Beyond the burden of fossil fuel pollution, the prospect of industry accidents and increased climate-related disasters weighs heavy on his mind—especially in the midst of a particularly devastating hurricane season. 

“​​The risk of industrial accidents is real and terrifying—an explosion or gas leak could destroy entire neighborhoods,” says James. “Moreover, the wetlands, which act as our front-line defense against increasingly severe hurricanes, would be further eroded, leaving us more vulnerable to climate disasters.”

 

James and Roishetta: The Human Cost of LNG

James, Roishetta, and other Gulf activists face a two-front fight: against existing terminals and at least five proposed LNG export authorizations (Commonwealth LNG, Port Arthur LNG Trains 3-4, Lake Charles LNG, Magnolia LNG, and CP2 LNG). James argues that while these projects allegedly promise jobs, the reality is that they are short-term and limited, with the long-term costs borne by those living there. He says neither path is good for locals, the economy, or climate resilience: 

“[The proposed LNG projects] lock us into a fossil fuel economy that is not only shrinking in terms of job opportunities but also leaving behind irreversible damage to our environment and people’s health. There are already three operating LNG export terminals in southwest Louisiana—and I'd invite everyone to come look at what ‘economic prosperity’ looks like. It looks like shrimpers who are dumbfounded by the lack of shrimp in their nets, homeowners who are unable to afford insurance, and churches that no longer function because the hurricanes destroyed the buildings and drove the congregants away from the coast.”

James Hiatt and his community holding anti-LNG signs at a climate protest
Roishetta Ozane and her community smiling at a climate protest.

“We deserve to be heard and protected, not sacrificed for profit.”

Roishetta Ozane

Both James and Roishetta agree that LNG expansion sacrifices our collective future for short-term profits for a select few. 

Roishetta warns, “If the Port Arthur LNG Trains 3-4 are greenlighted, the consequences for the Port Arthur community and the entire Gulf Coast would be dire. These facilities would lead to increased air and water pollution, heightening health risks, particularly for our children and elderly. The industrial expansion would also exacerbate existing inequalities, as marginalized communities like ours bear the brunt of environmental hazards. The fight for a just and sustainable environment is not just a personal mission but a collective necessity for the health and well-being of our community.”

 

Headshot of Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni

Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni

Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Minnesota

“LNG is not just a Gulf South issue.”

The current impact of LNG is devastating to nearby communities, and its harms would only multiply with further build-out. New analysis from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA shows that LNG pollution currently causes an unacceptable 60 premature deaths and $957 million in total health costs per year. These numbers would jump to 149 premature deaths and $2.3 billion in health costs in a full build-out scenario. 

But LNG terminals spew air pollution that poisons far more than just nearby communities. That’s why medical professionals and public health experts like  

Dr. Laalitha Surapaneni are also among the many ringing the alarm bells on LNG:

“With the massive proposed buildout in the Gulf South, the communities nearby will face compounded health impacts. These health impacts are borne disproportionately by Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities,” Dr. Surapaneni says. “But LNG is not just a Gulf South issue. More LNG exports mean more fracking for ‘natural gas’ (also known as methane [gas]) and health impacts across the country all along the supply chain. This is why health organizations representing more than 67,000 health professionals recognize that LNG is a health hazard and urge the Department of Energy to make this pause permanent—to protect our health and the planet’s.”

 

Svitlana Romanko holding a sign that says

Dr. Svitlana Romanko

Founder & Executive Director, Razom We Stand

“LNG exports only deepen reliance on costly and subsidized dirty energy.”

LNG is often cloaked in patriotic rhetoric. But there’s nothing American about hitting families with high, volatile monthly energy bills, driven by global markets, foreign leaders, and fossil fuel CEO whims. 

For example, the U.S. is meeting its energy commitments to allies overseas—and the European Union’s demand for LNG is on the long-term decline as it embraces renewable energy. Still, Big Polluters have tried to justify the LNG industry’s ruthless expansion by claiming that the U.S. needs it to meet Europe’s energy demands, particularly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

For Dr. Svitlana Romanko, a Ukrainian activist, and others steeped in international economics, transitioning away from LNG means breaking free from international politics influencing local impacts: 

“Making the LNG pause permanent is essential for breaking the world’s dangerous addiction to fossil fuels, which not only sustains petro-dictatorships but also fuels global conflict. This has been tragically evident in the war on Ukraine, where Russia exploits global LNG dependency to fund the relentless bombing of Ukrainian cities. LNG exports only deepen reliance on costly and subsidized dirty energy, prolonging climate damage, war, and economic instability. At Razom We Stand, we believe the path to true energy security lies in accelerating the transition to clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, cutting off Big Oil’s power, and freeing the world from the grip of petro-dictators.”

 

Half a Million People Have Spoken Up to End LNG Expansion 

The evidence is clear, and the numbers don’t lie. Overwhelmingly, people want to see DOE and U.S. leadership do what’s in the best interest of the American public—not profit-driven oil and gas CEOs or foreign dictators. Behind these four voices, there are hundreds of thousands more saying no to more LNG export terminals poisoning our children, spoiling our coastlines, and making our energy costs more volatile. Now, it’s on DOE to listen. 

 


 

Headshot of Medhini Kumar

Author - Medhini Kumar

Medhini is the writing/editing digital lead for Evergreen. Through powerful storytelling, she hopes to help move the needle on climate policy and contribute to our collective fight for a livable planet.

Headshot of Mattea Mrkusic

Editor - Mattea Mrkusic

Mattea is the senior energy transition policy lead at Evergreen. Her policy research focuses on climate, clean energy, and a swift and just transition away from fossil fuels.