You quickly lose credibility when the measures you advocate are demonstrably contrary to your stated goals. From Devin Hartman at realclearwire.com:
Environmentalism has become a baffling paradox. The latest indication came when environmental activists convinced the Biden administration to halt exports of liquified natural gas (LNG) so the U.S. could meet climate goals. Left-leaning outlets labeled it a “win for political symbolism, not the climate”, while right-leaning experts called it “impulsive and destructive.” Both are correct. And both caught the scent of a much bigger problem.
A quick fact check calls the climate merits of curtailing LNG exports into question. Most LNG exports go to Europe, where they have a 41% lifecycle emissions advantage over Russian gas imports. The majority of remaining exports go to Asia, where it heavily displaces coal. Exporting LNG is often a climate winner, not to mention the economic and security benefits for ourselves and our allies.
Biden’s LNG decision is eerily reminiscent of the Keystone XL pipeline, where politics trumped merit. The environmental movement rallied around Keystone opposition, labeling it “game over” for climate. Yet objective analyses by credible groups like Resources for the Future found no cause for alarmism. Nevertheless, President Obama cited climate concerns in rejecting the pipeline. The “Keystonization” of infrastructure has since made project approvals based on climate red herrings as much as actual environmental impact.
Why are green-minded presidents making such irrational decisions? Because their influencers prioritize symbolism over results. Symbolism, especially project opposition, is an effective political tool and fundraiser for the environmental movement. But it must quickly be reconciled with policy effectiveness and remain cognizant of tradeoffs.
