Countries have a choice: LNG or energy security

This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and UK government are hosting the Summit on the Future of Energy Security – where the conference rooms will be filled with fossil fuel companies and a select group of government officials. 

While all countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at UN climate talks in Dubai in 2023, fossil fuel interests are peddling massive LNG expansion under the guise of fulfilling energy security needs – creating a roadblock to a just and equitable transition to renewable energy that we urgently need. 

Countries need to realize that importing fossil fuels has become a source of deep economic and geopolitical vulnerability, and governments pursuing new LNG deals and calling it energy security face disastrous economic and climate consequences. As an Ember analysis showed, ¾ of the world’s population lives in net fossil fuel importing countries, which has become an even stronger risk factor due to disruptions to global trade wrought by the United States, the biggest global LNG exporter.

Fossil fuels are inherently insecure and inequitable due to the simple fact of their presence in a limited number of geographies. Fossil fuel importers will always be subject to volatility and instability, no matter who the dealer is. That is why an accelerated and equitable exit from fossil fuels and ramping up of investments in renewable energy and energy security are countries’ best bets to achieve long lasting energy security.

More fossil fuels means more volatility

More fossil fuels means continued price volatility with deep economic, social, and political consequences. Bangladesh’s increased dependence on LNG imports led to acute energy and economic disruptions in 2022 and 2023 as global LNG prices skyrocketed due to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Over reliance on expensive fossil fuels has increased debt levels. As fossil gas imports become more and more unaffordable, Bangladesh has suffered from severe power outages with power plants idling. At the same time, increasing subsidies have made the power sector unsustainable.

Pakistan, a country with a history of constant rolling blackouts and an overreliance on fossil fuel imports, was left high and dry in 2022 when Swiss-based LNG trading firm Gunvor scrapped their deal with the country in order to profit from selling Pakistan’s contracted LNG  to Europe amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  

Europe’s continued dependence on gas imports cost its taxpayers billions of euros, fueled inflation and energy poverty and left the continent in a state of geopolitical weakness vis a vis its gas suppliers, including the United States. In the EU, 1 in 4 households aren’t able to adequately heat, cool, or light their homes. Instead of seeking to exit its dependence on imported LNG, the European Union has announced its intention to invest public funding into LNG infrastructure abroad. As a response, Asia CSO groups sent an open letter to the EU, warning decision makers not to follow this ‘Japanese Model’ of using public money to invest in LNG. They have witnessed the harmful impacts of Japanese financed gas and LNG projects firsthand, and energy market analysts have clearly outlined that Europe would be similarly affected.

The EU’s plans stand in stark contrast with the 40-signatory Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP), forged in Glasgow at the 2021 UN climate talks, that commits governments and institutions to end taxpayer finance for international fossil fuel projects and fully prioritize their public finance for clean energy. This partnership is working, with international fossil fuel finance falling considerably among signatories – by two-thirds (USD 15 billion) in 2023 compared with a 2019 baseline. 

Delaying a fair and funded transition to renewable energy and instead using public money to invest in LNG infrastructure props up the fossil fuel industry that has been raking in profits on average of USD 1 trillion annually for the last 10 years, while failing to lower high energy bills that people are already struggling to pay for. 

Now, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has turned LNG into a geopolitical bargaining chip, pushing countries to lock-in their reliance on U.S. LNG in exchange for tariff relief. Trump has urged the EU to commit to buying USD 350 billion in U.S. gas if it wants to avoid sweeping tariffs – a move that over 50,000 people are urging the EU to block in a petition launched earlier this month. 

Continued reliance on LNG is increasingly a source of geopolitical, as well as economic, vulnerability for importing countries – and can be  worse for the climate than coal. One study found that the full life-cycle emissions of LNG could be up to 33% higher than for coal. LNG is not a bridge fuel, nor is it a bridge to affordable, secure energy.

In exporting countries like the U.S., LNG projects are harming communities like the Appalachian, Permian, and Gulf South communities where gas extraction and export takes place. Living near LNG export terminals or fracked gas wells increases the risk of asthma, certain cancers, and harm to maternal and infant health – and the fossil fuel industry is building these projects in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities that it sees as “sacrifice zones”. 

Because of environmental racism, these communities are often already facing high burdens of pollution. Allowing new LNG projects would only exacerbate the situation, making residents sicker and less safe, while also creating bigger barriers to a clean energy future. As climate action and renewable energy become more widespread globally, there is a risk that these projects become “stranded assets” that burden communities with toxic pollution and costly clean-ups, while promised economic benefits evaporate.

LNG exports would also harm working families in the U.S. struggling with the soaring cost of energy. According to a study from the U.S. Department of Energy, increased U.S. LNG exports could result in “a triple-cost increase to U.S. consumers” meaning that consumers would see increases in the price they pay for gas, the price they pay for electricity and the price they pay for manufactured goods. In Australia, consumers have already been hit with higher energy bills because of increased LNG exports.

Renewables just make economic sense

Fossil fuel dependency is quickly turning to a vulnerability – and 52 countries are currently reliant on importing fossil fuels to cover more than half of their primary energy supply. On the other hand, renewables are not limited by geography. Instead they are available to all, and global renewable potential is 100 times larger than fossil fuels – with every country in the world having enough renewables to meet its entire energy demand. 

Countries’ best chance at delivering energy security to their communities and achieving energy independence is to accelerate their phase out of all fossil fuels and doubling down on energy efficiency and a just transition to renewables. Instead of continuous flows of fossil fuel imports, a one-off import of electrotech like renewables, heat pumps, and electric vehicles could deliver local energy for decades. This shift could reduce net fossil fuel imports by 70%, and save importers $1.3 trillion globally each year. 

Many countries are already choosing the energy transition as an energy security and affordability strategy. A growing group of long-time fossil fuel importers are turning to renewables and embracing the clean energy transition to reduce fossil fuel import bills and drive economic freedom.

• After being left in the dark when its LNG deal was terminated, Pakistan imported more than 22 gigawatts worth of solar panels in less than a year by the end of 2024 – more solar than Canada has installed in total. Despite the country’s fossil fuel heavy energy mix, the tipping point came when renewable energy clearly made economic sense.  
• In Asia, solar generation in seven key countries – China, India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand – cut potential fossil fuel costs by approximately USD 34 billion from January to June 2022, equal to 9% of total fossil fuel costs these countries incurred over the same period.
• In the last five years, the EU has saved €59 billion that would have been spent on importing fossil fuels, by instead rolling out additional wind and solar capacity.
• In the first quarter of 2025, China’s use of coal for power generation dropped 4.7% year-on-year despite a 1% increase in total power generation. Analysts believe that this is due to a massive buildout of rooftop solar in 2024, amounting to 120 GW. 

Importers will still need to import fossil fuels while they transition to renewable energy. But new, long-term contracts to import fossil gas and new import infrastructure will be a roadblock to securing energy security, affordability, and independence from volatile and unreliable imports. Importers should instead focus on using their purchasing power to strike deals on terms that don’t lock in fossil fuel expansion for decades, and are compatible with the necessity to limit warming to 1.5°C through minimizing fossil fuel imports and maximizing efficiency, renewable energy, energy storage, and grid development. 

Energy security can be delivered in a manner that serves people first, by investing in reducing energy consumption and massively ramping up renewable energy – that will also help lower energy bills for households including those living in energy poverty. Rich governments can and must raise the trillions in public money needed to deliver a just and fairly funded energy transition by ending fossil fuel handouts, making polluters pay, and changing unfair global financial rules.