Industry-Backed LNG Report Cherry-Picks Data, Misleads on Future Gains

Study comes from the National Association of Manufacturers, a notorious industry front group with a history of pushing fossil fuel interests

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Two major reports released today paint starkly different pictures of the impact of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. While the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) touts supposed economic benefits, a separate report from the American Security Project (ASP) raises serious concerns about national security implications and economic competitiveness.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ (NAM) study touting the supposed economic benefits of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports by 2044 contains serious flaws in both the data and the narrative being pushed. NAM has a well-documented history of serving as a front for industry interests, and this report is no different. It is a clear attempt to inflate the supposed benefits of LNG exports, using cherry-picked numbers and inflated claims that mislead policymakers and the public.

“This report is nothing more than a deceptive attempt to inflate the benefits of LNG exports while ignoring the very real costs to American families, our climate, and vulnerable communities. It cherry-picks data, overstates economic gains, and glosses over the health, environmental, and financial impacts that will harm everyday Americans in the long run,” said Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media.

“NAM’s board of directors includes LNG exporters like ExxonMobil and corporations with global operations, so their membership has financial conflicts of interest on LNG exports. The fact is that LNG exports expose American families and domestic manufactures to higher energy price burdens, which is confirmed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projects a 55 percent domestic natural gas price increase in 2025 due in part to rising LNG exports in its September 2024 short term energy outlook,” said Tyson Slocum, Energy Program Director for Public Citizen.

The ASP report, titled “The U.S.-China LNG Export Dilemma,” provides a crucial counterpoint to NAM’s economic claims. It reveals that rather than becoming dependent on the United States, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) exploits the U.S. LNG export strategy to resell U.S. exports at a profit and expand its malignant foreign influence.

“By exporting massive volumes of cheap LNG, the United States is giving away its strategic energy advantage. China isn’t growing more dependent on U.S. gas—it is re-selling it to build the power of the CCP and achieve its own goals, including gaining a monopoly over global renewable energy and clean tech,” said Courtney Manning, Senior Research Scientist at the American Security Project. 

The report finds that Chinese intermediaries and state-owned enterprises profit from arbitrage by stockpiling U.S. LNG during periods of oversupply and reselling it at a premium during global shortages. This practice not only undermines U.S. economic interests but also extends the CCP’s geopolitical influence, particularly in the Global South.

Cherry-Picking Across the Entire LNG Supply Chain

One of the most misleading aspects of NAM’s report is that it doesn’t just focus on the export facilities themselves, but stretches the economic benefits across the entire LNG supply chain—from extraction and processing to transport and export. By doing so, NAM artificially inflates the economic numbers, counting benefits from unrelated sectors, while ignoring the real costs imposed on the communities that bear the brunt of LNG infrastructure.

Rather than presenting an honest assessment of the impact of LNG export terminals, NAM glosses over the localized damages—both economic and environmental—inflicted by these projects. Communities near LNG export facilities experience higher rates of pollution, increased health risks, and environmental degradation, all of which come with substantial long-term costs. The economic benefits NAM touts fail to account for these realities, choosing to ignore the mounting public health crises these facilities cause.

Health Impacts and Environmental Costs

LNG export terminals are often located near vulnerable communities, disproportionately affecting low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. These facilities release harmful pollutants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter, contributing to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and even premature death. The costs of treating these health impacts—through increased medical expenses, lost productivity, and the long-term burden on the healthcare system—are not factored into NAM’s rosy economic picture.

A recent report by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA concluded that the air pollution alone from permitted and proposed new LNG export facilities could result in 4,470 avoidable deaths & $62.2 billion in health costs by 2050. While devastating, those local health impacts are just a fraction of the total threat posed by these facilities. 

The report conveniently sidesteps these costs while promoting an agenda that puts corporate profits over public health. If the full environmental, climate and health damages were included in their analysis, the economic case for LNG exports would collapse under its own weight.

“Once again the fossil fuel industries and its allies are greenwashing its impacts and neglecting the facts. The report’s inflated claims about the benefits of LNG exports mask the grave health and environmental consequences, including an alarming potential for 4,470 avoidable deaths and $62.2 billion in health costs by 2050. The fossil fuel industry poses significant health risks that can’t be ignored. From air and water pollution leading to respiratory diseases, and cancer to occupational hazards faced by workers, the toll on our communities is profound. Climate change, driven by fossil fuels, not only leads to more extreme weather events but also exacerbates health issues through heat-related illnesses and the spread of infectious diseases. We cannot allow the interests of multinational corporations to overshadow the urgent need for environmental justice, the well-being of our people, and the fact that we need to phase out fossil fuels,” Roishetta Ozone, Executive Director of The Vessel Project of Sulphur, Louisiana 

LNG Exports Will Drive Up Costs for Americans

Contrary to NAM’s claim of economic benefits, increasing LNG exports will actually result in higher energy costs for Americans. According to a report by Public Citizen, ramping up LNG exports drives up domestic natural gas prices, leading to higher heating and electricity bills for U.S. households and businesses. 

The report found that current LNG export levels have already contributed to a 60% increase in wholesale gas prices since 2021, adding significant inflationary pressure on the economy. If LNG exports continue to expand, U.S. consumers will face higher energy bills, which could slow economic growth and burden low-income households the most. The report estimated that consumers will pay $14.3 billion in natural gas costs in 2050 as a result of LNG exports. Costs for manufacturing, fertilizer, and other products reliant on natural gas would also go up. The economic harms resulting from LNG exports are a direct consequence of shifting domestic supply to more lucrative overseas markets, leaving Americans to foot the bill for industry profits.

Manipulating Data to Inflate Economic Benefits

In an attempt to make their case more compelling, NAM goes so far as to include unrelated financial flows, such as personal income taxes and social insurance contributions, in their estimates of LNG’s economic benefits. These additions are designed to pad the numbers and paint a picture of wide-ranging economic prosperity that is far from reality. The fact is, these benefits are neither unique to LNG nor exclusive to the fossil fuel industry—they exist in virtually every sector and cannot be attributed solely to LNG exports.

NAM’s report relies on bloated, speculative data to sell the idea that LNG exports will create significant economic gains, when in reality, much of the economic activity they reference would occur regardless of LNG’s role. This misrepresentation only serves to further their industry-backed agenda.

Claiming Benefits from Already Approved Projects and Upstream Activity 

Another significant flaw in NAM’s report is their attempt to claim economic benefits from LNG projects that have already been approved and are not impacted by the Department of Energy’s pause on new projects. By including these projects in their analysis, NAM inflates the supposed future benefits of expanded LNG exports, even though these particular projects would move forward regardless of any new policy decisions.

This is a clear case of double-counting. The economic activity generated by these approved projects has already been factored into existing projections and policy analyses. Including them in NAM’s report as if they represent additional future benefits is not just misleading, it’s deliberately deceptive.

NAM also appears to include the entire gas supply chain in their calculations, from extraction to export, rather than focusing solely on the LNG export facilities currently under review. This vastly overstates the economic impact of a single facility. Instead of flowing through an export facility to China, for instance, that gas could go to US consumers or businesses. 

These tactics underscores the need for careful scrutiny of industry-driven reports, as it shows how far groups like NAM will go to paint a picture of economic prosperity that doesn’t align with reality.

NAM: A Notorious Industry Front Group

The National Association of Manufacturers has a long history of pushing industry-friendly narratives at the expense of public interest. While it presents itself as a voice for American manufacturers, its track record shows that it frequently acts as a mouthpiece for fossil fuel interests and other corporate sectors with deep pockets. In the 1980s, NAM opposed the Clean Air Act (using similar misleading studies to try and scare the public about its impacts). In the 1990s, NAM hosted the Global Climate coalition, a fossil fuel industry front that spread disinformation about the climate crisis and lobbied against regulatory action. Recently, NAM launched the Manufacturers Accountability Project that aims to fight off climate liability lawsuits against oil and gas companies. Time and again, NAM has supported policies and reports that prioritize profit over people, sacrificing long-term sustainability for short-term gains.

“NAM has used the same scare-tactics to attack everything from the Clean Air Act to our efforts to fight the climate crisis. Time and again they’ve gotten the data completely backwards: protecting our environment and strengthening our economy go hand-in-hand,” said Henn. 

Policymakers and the public should view this report with skepticism. NAM’s interests are not aligned with those of working people or the environment. This report is just another attempt by the fossil fuel industry to push a narrative that masks the broader risks and consequences of LNG expansion.

Timing: The Ironic Context of Climate Disasters

“It’s particularly ironic that this study is being released in the wake of two devastating climate-related disasters, Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, which caused tens of billions of dollars in damage across the Gulf and East Coasts,” said Henn. “LNG is a major contributor to global warming, which is fueling more frequent and severe storms like these. The industry knows this, and that’s why they included a sea wall in their plans for the proposed CP2 export facility. I’m surprised to see that part of the project wasn’t specifically referenced as part of the supposed economic benefits for these facilities.” 

LNG is directly tied to the very climate impacts the world is already experiencing, from more intense hurricanes to rising sea levels. Expanding this industry will only make these disasters more common and more costly, with communities paying the ultimate price while corporations reap short-term profits.

Clean Energy: A Clear Alternative

While NAM and the fossil fuel industry push for expanded LNG exports, clean energy provides a clear and viable alternative that will bring real, sustainable economic benefits without the damaging health and environmental costs. Investments in renewable energy—solar, wind, and energy storage—are already outpacing fossil fuel investments and creating more jobs than traditional energy sectors. Clean energy infrastructure is the key to building a resilient and thriving economy, while also addressing the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions.

By continuing to push for LNG exports, NAM is ignoring the tremendous potential of a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable future built on renewable energy. These technologies not only offer competitive economic benefits, but also protect communities from the harmful effects of fossil fuel infrastructure.

The Need for Independent Government Analysis

“This report from NAM proves exactly why it’s critical for the Department of Energy to conduct its own independent studies on the economic impacts of LNG exports,” said Henn. “Industry-driven reports like this one are full of disinformation designed to confuse the public and policymakers. We need unbiased, data-driven analysis to push back on these misleading narratives and ensure our energy future prioritizes the public good over corporate interests.”

The public deserves accurate information on the true costs and benefits of LNG exports—something that can only come from impartial studies conducted by entities without vested interests in fossil fuel expansion.

Conclusion: Clean Energy is the Path Forward

As the world faces increasingly severe climate impacts, it’s clear that LNG is not the solution. Instead, we should focus on transitioning to clean energy sources that offer real economic growth and environmental sustainability. NAM’s inflated claims of economic benefits only serve to distort this vision, prolonging dependence on fossil fuels at the expense of healthier, more resilient communities.

The public deserves honest data and a realistic view of the energy landscape—not industry-backed reports designed to mislead and sell a product that brings far more harm than benefit.

 

The post Industry-Backed LNG Report Cherry-Picks Data, Misleads on Future Gains appeared first on Fossil Free Media.