Post

Think tanks will soon start releasing non-peer-reviewed modeling of how the permitting bill might affect pollution, if they haven't already. Most will secretly have lots of ideology-driven thumbs on scales. One big way to tip the scales is by ignoring pollution associated with oil and gas exports.

Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they)@doctorvive.bsky.social

The real question is how this Permitting Reform bill expands global emissions. Most of the fossil infrastructure that will get built without review will be used for methane-gas exports. Advocates’ claim that US emissions will go down is like the three card monte of the campaign for this bill.

4/10/26, 12:30 pm31 reposts110 likes

Kevin J. Kircher

@kevinjkircher.com

A very common modeling jujutsu move is to assign the US zero responsibility for pollution from oil and gas it exports. "Oil and gas exports don't heat the planet, people who burn oil and gas exports heat the planet." This is an ideological choice, a value judgment akin to "guns don't kill people,

Geoff Staneff

@gstaneff.bsky.social

Are they booking the revenue (growth), but discarding the emissions? That's a choice (disengenuous). Same choice Microsoft makes when it claims Use of Product is beyond their 'boundary' when providing services to drilling companies in the Permian Basin (to the tune of 50k bpd improved yield).

news.microsoft.comExxonMobil to increase Permian profitability through digital partnership with Microsoft - SourcePermian application to generate billions of dollars in value over the next decade and drive capital efficiency Potential to expand production by as much as 50,000 oil-equivalent barrels a day by 2025 ...

Kevin J. Kircher

@kevinjkircher.com

Heh, yeah... it's the same ideological move that AI hypemen pull when they extol the potential emission reductions from using AI to improve buidling/grid/etc. operations while ignoring the potential emission additions from using AI to expand oil/gas/etc. operations.

Dropped Mike

@rebrafsim.bsky.social

Arguably even worse. Guns CAN be used for purposes other than killing people (it can be debated whether any of those purposes is good). LNG doesn’t taste very good

Pete Erickson

@pugetgold.bsky.social

Sure, was common, but the groups modeling Inflation Reduction Act did a really good job of this, do you think they won't this time? (as context, US State Dept and several courts cited my work as reason one can't just wish away exported fossil emissions)

Kevin J. Kircher

@kevinjkircher.com

people kill people," the old NRA saw. You are of course free to decide for yourself whether you agree with this value judgment, but I think it's important to ask how these think tanks treat exports in their modeling. If they choose to ignore pollution from exports, what other ideological choices are

Ablokeimet

@ablokeimet.bsky.social

It's OK not to count emissions from exports provided: 1. The destination country has legislated net zero by 2050; & 2. Emissions from production of exported hydrocarbons *are* counted. Otherwise, count it.

Kevin J. Kircher

@kevinjkircher.com

they making? If they choose to ignore pollution from exports, and also don't clearly acknowledge that ideological choice early in their talk or paper, then what else might they be sweeping under the rug?

Kevin J. Kircher

@kevinjkircher.com

Another important modeling choice is if/how to include methane pollution from oil and gas infrastructure. O&G companies leak or intentionally vent methane, the main component of natural gas, from wells, flares, pipelines, compressors, storage facilities, export terminals, ships, and other places.