Hidden emissions: The mysterious cost of fossil fuel exports.

When the global community meets in the United Arab Emirates later this month for the next round of never-ending climate talks, much attention will be paid to individual countries' commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has been a staple of the climate talks almost from the start. But it is far from the full picture, and this is becoming clearer as time goes on in the energy transformation. We've been measuring it wrong.

Because a country's fossil fuel exports are not counted in the total. But it is these exports that are driving the expansion of fossil fuel production around the world and come from some of the most influential and wealthiest countries on''Earth.

Let's look at the most obvious and largest example: The United States is, in part, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time, U.S. fossil fuel production is increasing. That means much of that production is destined for export.

The numbers are truly staggering. For example, if construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities proceeds as planned, by 2030 U.S. LNG will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the homes, cars and factories in the European Union. Under the UN accounting system, these emissions will appear in the reports of the EU and dozens of Asian countries that will buy gas. But if we could see them in the atmosphere, they would be red, white and''blue.

The same could be said for several other countries - in fact, some of them are even more hypocritical. Norway has done as good a job as any country on Earth in breaking its dependence on oil and gas; almost all new cars in the country run on electricity. But at the same time they are planning one of the dozen largest expansions of national oil and gas production, almost all for export. The same can be said for Canada and Australia. A surprising new report from Oil Change International shows that these four countries (the U.S., Canada, Australia and Norway), plus the U.K., are responsible for more than half of the planned expansion of the oil and gas industry through mid-century. In most''s cases, project licenses have already been obtained and unless officials intervene, the damage (enough carbon and methane to exceed Paris' climate goals) will be inevitable.

So if other countries and the climate movement can find a way to pressure these countries to reduce fossil fuel exports, we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If five countries take on half the problem with expansion, and if those five countries have the freedom to choose their future, the basic goals become clear.

Australia,''for example, gives the green light to major new coal and gas projects. Norway is developing 47 new licenses for oil and gas projects in the Norwegian Sea and allowing expansion in the Barents Sea in the Arctic. And the current Conservative government in the UK has adopted a policy of "maximum extraction" of fossil fuels in the North Sea.

When it comes to the US, a large expansion of the oil and gas industry is planned in that country. Since the early 2000s, shale development has allowed rapid expansion of oil and gas production. We are more than amply supplied with these resources - so we need to find buyers.

At one time before 2015, we were unable to export oil because of the ban on oil exports imposed after the oil''Gulf of Mexico, with 24 more planned; their goal is simply to take the excess gas from shale development and ship it overseas. And the numbers are staggering. For example, if you recall the anger that President Biden drew when he foolishly approved the Willow project in Alaska in March, the next CP2 export terminal in the state of Louisiana will be linked to greenhouse gas emissions 20 times greater than the Willow project.

The Obama administration, of course, endorsed shale development-it seemed like an easy way out of the climate and economic problems it inherited to revitalize the economy with cheap fossil fuels and the fact that burning natural gas emits less carbon than''and this year. There is no need to build new terminals.

This is especially true because the old argument that exported gas is cleaner than coal burned in Asia no longer makes sense. Solar and wind now produce the cheapest energy on Earth, and we're no longer talking about transient energy sources. The point of zero emissions is that we need to move quickly to truly clean energy.

This is especially important because we've learned that exporting this energy is even more dangerous than using it domestically. A new report by Bob Howarth of Cornell University, which I first published in The New Yorker last week, has truly shocking implications. It shows that when LNG is transported for'''border is where the big emissions come from. At best, it's 24 percent worse for the climate than burning coal; at worst (old ship, long haul) it's 274 percent worse. This is incredible and soul-terrifying, and it makes the calculations, such as those in the OCI report, even more threatening.

But Biden can limit the damage. While his administration has already approved too many of these projects, he can stop the remaining ones. Under federal law, the Department of Energy must issue an export permit for each new terminal, certifying that sending it to countries with which we don't have free trade agreements is in the interest of national security. And apparently it is, and it could bring back the crude oil export ban lifted in 2015