In only a couple of years, the Netherlands has become the 2nd largest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Europe, accounting for 14% of the total import in Europe in 2024. One of the largest LNG terminals in Europe is located in the port of Rotterdam and is currently being expanded, notwithstanding its huge contribution to climate change. 

Advocates for the Future published a study last year, highlighting the severe impact of LNG to climate change. In the report, we raised concerns about the use of LNG as a shipping fuel and the ongoing investments in LNG infrastructure which could result in a fossil lock-in. The vice-mayor of Rotterdam, Chantal Zeegers, responded to questions raised by council member Mina Morkoç following our report. 

The key issues: is LNG really the transition fuel as some people claim? By investing in LNG now, are we not creating a lock-in and increasing our dependency on natural gas for years to come? Given the negative impact of LNG, is it wise to facilitate the expansion of the LNG facilities in the Port of Rotterdam?

The vice-mayor’s reply doesn’t dismiss the concerns, but shrugs off the suggestion of a different course. The vice-mayor notes that 60% of the natural gas on the Dutch network is imported via the LNG import terminal in the Port of Rotterdam. She concludes dryly: “as long as there is demand for natural gas, it makes sense to have an import terminal for LNG in the port”.

But does that really make sense? The vice-mayor’s stance suggests that supply of fossil fuels should follow whatever demand lies ahead in the future. However, that’s not how climate policy works. We need strong policies precisely to steer demand away from fossil fuels - not to follow it. 

The vice-major’s reply uncovers a deep-rooted fallacy: whatever worked in the past, should be extended to the future. That reasoning does not work. We cannot simply rely on what we did in the past. We need to find alternative ways to work towards a fossil-free future. 

The vice-mayor equally ignores that supply creates its own demand. Current demand is not a valid excuse to expand supply capacity for the future, as that decision simply creates more demand than in the absence of the added capacity. Just ask urban planners who previously thought increasing road capacity is always the best solution to combat traffic jams. We need different solutions, rather than doubling down on what got us in this mess in the first place.

All this requires careful planning on how we reduce our reliance on gas, including LNG. And that - at the very least - we don’t make future decisions resulting in greater reliance, by adding LNG capacity and creating additional fossil lock-in. In 2023, the Rotterdam Gate LNG terminal announced a sizable capacity expansion - including a new LNG storage tank of 180 thousand cubic meters and additional regasification capacity of 4 billion cubic meters per year. Construction is currently underway, and the additional capacity is planned to become operational in 2026. This construction project does not seem to be the end of the drive towards expansion. In 2024, Gate called for expression of interest to construct a new jetty for small scale ship loading services using LNG. How do such expansions square with the aim to reduce fossil fuel dependency, and work towards a fossil-free economy? 

Back to the vice-mayor’s letter. It acknowledges that LNG imports will at some point become obsolete, as our climate policy goals implies that we will have to move away from using natural gas. But it ignores the urgency of the climate problem, and the need to step away from LNG as soon as possible.

LNG? Let’s rethink our plans. And whatever we do - Let’s Not Grow it.