Sean CastenThis Yglesias piece in the NYT is horrifically bad. Almost every "fact" it cites is provably false. At best it is cocktail party banter from a pundit who knows nothing of energy. At worst, it was cut/paste from oil industry talking points. So, a rebuttal: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/opinion/democrats-liberals-oil-gas-industry.html
1. First: the elephant in the room that he doesn't mention explicitly but haunts the whole piece: climate change is real, we've already overshot and the only way to turn the corner is to leave fossil fuel in the ground. To ignore that is to talk about rocketry and ignore gravity.
2. What he says about climate is patently false (more on that later) but to the extent he's saying "politicians shouldn't do the right thing unless it's popular", I'd note only that that is a toddlers view of leadership. If the popular kids are mean, should you be mean?
3. Leadership is about doing what is necessary, not just what is popular. Read literally anything our founders wrote about virtue, and the inherent risks to a society based on democratic processes to sustain the rule of law to the extent that unvirtuous people gain power.
4. Yglesias instead seems to implicitly argue that politicians should only do what wins elections, virtue be damned. One wonders what he thinks of those foolish 1850s abolitionists. As Condleeza Rice once said, politics is the art of making the impossible inevitable. That ain't this.
5. But enough on climate. This is an opinion piece and if MY's opinion is that we shouldn't act on climate at a scale sufficient to the threat there's not much I can do. Let's go to the facts. First, the idea that Obama won in 2012 because he embraced an all-of-the-above strategy. Really?
6. That election had a robust debate over the gulf war and criticism of the size of the 2008 bailout. Romney was framed as an out of touch plutocrat. To the extent energy came up it was the criticism of the Dems for Waxman Markey cap & trade in 2009, not "thank you for drilling".
7. But even beyond the political conversation, you can't compare 2012 energy policy to 2025 without understanding the massive shift in US fossil energy production & net imports over that period. Look at the "net imports" line on this chart.
8. In 2012, the US was a net importer of oil and domestic production, after decades of decline was ticking up thanks to fracking. Today, the US is a net exporter. Couple that with concerns about middle east politics in 2012 and you have a VERY different set of issues for US energy consumers.
9. As a net importer, every incremental unit of domestic production reduced our exposure to foreign oil & associated price volatility. As a net exporter, every incremental unit gets shipped overseas.
10. In other words, in 2012 new production benefited domestic producers AND consumers. But today, new production only benefits producers. That's a fundamentally different policy and political environment. And note also that domestic consumption is basically flat for the last 20 yrs.
11. That's a good thing! We're just as warm, just as able to travel as we were 20 years ago, and rising vehicle efficiency, EV deployment, etc. is giving consumers more useful energy with less oil expense. That's good for consumers, even if it hurts producers.
12. And if we want to talk about the politics, here's some easy math: there are a lot more voters who consume energy than there are who produce energy. If you're confused on that point, you might be a crappy pundit...
13. And this isn't just true of oil. We've also moved from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas since 2012. (Also because fracking.) Which again means that to take Yglesias' advice in 2025 is to prioritize energy producers over energy consumers.
14. The wealth transfer from natural gas is perhaps even more direct since gas - unlike oil - isn't quite a global commodity; the costs to liquefy and transport gas, per MMBtu are a lot higher than oil, which creates much higher local price disparities.
15. As such, when US producers can swap European/Asian markets for the US markets and make a higher margin, even after accounting for shipping costs it puts significant upward pressure on previously land-locked domestic prices.
16. This is the reverse of getting off middle eastern oil in 2012. Now, instead of decoupling from global volatility we are absorbing it. That gets quantified whenever a major US LNG export facility has an outage & domestic NG prices fall. Who ya rootin' for, Matt? https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53079#:~:text=A%20fire%20at%20Freeport%20LNG's,U.S.%20natural%20gas%20demand%20outlook.
17. It's worth reading the entirety of what DOE had to say about the impact of that 2022 outage on domestic prices. These are massive price swings - and therefore massive wealth transfers from US consumers to US producers!
18. Because natural gas is used for so much of US power generation, increasing gas exports = higher gas prices = higher electricity. One climate negative impact of that is that after years of decline, we now are seeing an uptick in domestic power generation from coal.
19. This isn't because coal is cheap, or because we're building more coal plants. It's because when the price of gas goes up gas fired power plants are a little less competitive against other asset classes and the competition (in this case, coal) picked up the slack.
20. So this goes back to point 10. When we are a net exporter, decisions to produce more help producers and hurt consumers. And in this case, are ALSO bad for the climate. It's lose / lose all around.
21. And before team Yglesias responds by saying "yeah, but it's bad politics to run on climate and energy"... I'd point out that I've won 4 elections in a very purple district running on climate and energy. Pro-tip: leadership is possible! You don't have to be stupid to win!
Fluffy Kitty Cat@SeanCasten it's because of AI datacenters and the fact that those old coal plants are still there ready to be used if needed
Thinkaholic is 🐸 antifa@SeanCasten I think you're significantly more right on the merits than Yggy is here, but I do think it's worth pointing out that exporting LNG has a real short-term advantage in helping Europe decouple its economy from Russia and making it better-positioned to resist Russian adventurism. Long-term, the answer is for Europe to focus on renewables and electrification, but a rational LNG export policy would buy time for them to make that transition.
@pooserville The ramp up in LNG exports since Trump was elected is overwhelmingly going to Asia and commodity markets. The short term value to help Europe wean off Russian oil was all met with existing export capacity and the Europeans have been clear they don't need any more.
@pooserville I'd also point out that IF LNG is a way for us to meet national security needs and help our European allies we should be selling it to them at cost (remember Lend Lease?) not just using them as a way to make money for US producers.
@SeanCasten I totally agree, but currently the US does not seem to acknowledge the existence of allies, and selling gas at a profit is better than not supplying them at all. I was not aware the degree to which current LNG exports are going to Asia, however; thanks for that info!
@SeanCasten another point is that thanks to solar power getting cheaper, more and more people are if energy producers but exclusively for clean energy. Plug in solar, maybe even plug in battery banks mean that even the apartment dweller could use time of use rates to store solar in the day and use it at night while also having power for the fridge if the grid power goes out. This can also be the foundation of microgrids which can not only provide resilience but allow the microgrid to negotiate as a bloc with larger utilities
Don Marti@SeanCasten Also national security concerns here. It seems like some NYT editor would have been watching the news from Russia. Fossil fuel facilities like refineries and LNG terminals are vulnerable, even to low-budget groups with basic drone skills.
(KSA policies: massive solar orders that include deals for investment in local manufacturing—big picture is to increase security and to displace locally used fossil fuels so more are available for export)
HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴@SeanCasten
#EnergyPolicy #US #Cimate
(1/2)
I liked your Argument so far, Sean, and yes,...
"you can't compare 2012 energy policy to 2025 without understanding the massive shift in US fossil energy production & net imports 👉over that period. 👈
But that is not what the graphs are doing. The latest year is only 2025.
Given that we had the Pandemic with the drastic drop in NRG consumption, and, as a long-term trend, even more important, the rising gluttonus consumtion of NRG by data centers,...
(2/2)
...quintessential to include 2021-2025 before drawing any conclusions.
(OFC, I do not disagree that NRG self-sufficiency greatly improved until 2020.)
//
Armchair Epistemologist@SeanCasten thank you for your service: reading yglesias so we don't have to...
Lyle Solla-Yates@SeanCasten Agreed, if a reader does not understand this then every action to protect public health and safety appears to be wasted effort. Amazing to me that we are still debating whether climate science is real as we suffer more and more.
Steve Moore 
@SeanCasten Thank you for constructing this thread, the more folks know about the machinations of fossil fuels, the more likely they will understand the need to leave ffs in the ground. Refinery capabilities of light vs heavy crude, what they churn out, where they are, & the transport of crude to them, is another aspect that needs more illumination.
Flaming CheetoFlaming Cheeto (@[email protected])
@[email protected] I politely push back whenever I see the expression "leave it in the ground" and suggest "unburned" or "not set on fire" Oil still has great value for petrochemicals and natural gas is the feedstock to synthetic fertilizer used to feed about half the world. Nothing is as profitable a business model as a product you acquire, sell, gets burnt up, repeat. But stock holders aren't being asked to go to zero.