Climate groups also don't necessarily support it when it is a straightforward win-win. If we increase the transport of natural gas in New England and Europe, we are (1) displacing dirtier fuels, (2) boosting the US economy, (3) supporting labor unions, (4) improving Democrats political position, and (5) advancing strategic geopolitical goals.
On the other hand, if you believe that US is a dangerous capitalist imperialist power that must be weakened and defeated to save the world and the climate, then it makes perfect sense to sandbag it. In other words, maybe we should say "The Anti-Americanism is the point".
Early in the article, there is the observation that: "I think Obama tended to) tell them what he thinks they should want."
Towards the end, there is the assertion that: "It all comes from rejecting interest group demands as given, and instead thinking about what their interests are and how better deals can be configured."
There is some tension between these two. The idea that you should move beyond someone's concrete ask to their further goals so as to open the way to outside the box win-win solutions is a staple of negotiation trainings. Obama's mistake was that Relublicans / conservatives don't really care about their stated philosophical ideals. That's just nicer sounding BS to retort in an argument.
The problem with this is timeframes. Sanctions are meant to coerce behavior changes, and they come with the principle that when the behavior changes, the sanctions go away. Meanwhile, oil and gas permitting is effectively forever. If you're a dedicated environmentalist, why would you agree to reductions in Russia's oil drilling that we might be obligated to lift at some point in exchange for a permanent increase in US output? It's only an easy swap if you expect the sanctions to last forever.
To understand Biden’s presidency, view him as a leader of a parliamentary coalition who always optimizes for the support of coalition partners. The difference between this view and MY’s framing is that finding the best policy outcome isn’t the objective.
It seems that the climate change issue should be handled more like the YIMBY movement, with a lot of technocrats quietly focusing on one issue and one issue alone. YIMBYs aren't organizing to block highways, and making their secondary demand the end Israel.
Again, I recommend you to be one of Kamala‘s most prominent economists! IMO It has been truly nuts to keep Trump’s tariffs on our European Allies. We definitely need to work across silos. We also must continue to get Administrations and Congress to recognize the ongoing need to build infrastructure for recipes for Climate Change.
The problem here is that environmental groups focus on _supply_ (and worse _US_ supply) instead of _global demand_ as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, it sometimes appears they hardly care about how much their actions will reduce global CO2 emissions at all.
Excellent post, Matthew. I agree wholeheartedly. Even more than that, there’s a moral clarity in increasing oil production in democratic countries and decreasing oil production in countries where the government oppresses and steals resources from their citizens. Leif Wenar’s “Blood Oil” covers this argument well.
It’s also important to note that our sanctions program against Russia, while containing a lot of sanctions numerically, is no where close to the strongest sanctions program we have imposed on an adversary. Secondary sanctions have only been recently imposed, and the big question is how rigorously they will be enforced. Secondary sanctions are the bazooka very few people understand.
To quibble: "a virtue out of weakness" seems overly judgmental. You were prepared to give Biden credit for finding the deal, as a good legislator before, and I see no reason to avoid coming to the same conclusion here; in many ways I think Biden has gone out of his way to find the deal. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it's failed, but the strategy was largely the same in both cases.
Overall, I personally vastly prefer Biden's low key presence to the constant in your face approach of Obama and Trump. Presidents aren't gods, and while Biden comes off as feeble: I think the facts of the case show this is not true. Biden isn't hiding, he's playing to his strengths.
Perhaps, the environmentalist groups do want global degrowth, global reduction in oil production, and should they be at the table they might demand both - reduction domestically and internationally (sanctions) - rather than be sensible. They would like oil consumption to reduce through higher (supply constraint driven) prices. They know advocating for a transparent higher price (carbon tax) is a non starter and hence this side door approach is perfectly reasonable to them. To me, this is eerily similar to the many progressive solutions that take the form of ban, mandate, license raj, etc.
Would anyone have guess that the Cuban, Venezuelan and Iranian revolutions would have lasted this long when they happened? In the face of American sanction activity? Can’t reward intransigent states with trade, but sanctions does not seem a very effective strategy.
Venezuela is really the most surprising of those three to me. I was skeptical that it would last more than two or three years after Chavez's death since it seemed to be based so much on a cult of personality. Cuba, I expected to undergo some form of democratization after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, but obviously at this point it's not really surprising any longer that it's still holding up. Iran is the least surprising to me, but I have the benefit of having a B.A. in Middle Eastern History, and I think Americans really just can't wrap their heads around the mindset of large parts of the population of the historical Islamic "heartland" region, i.e., lots of people really do sincerely believe in the tenets of their religion and are willing to suffer quite a bit of authoritarianism because they think that it is divinely approved.
I think authoritarians are fine with imposing suffering on their people and can use violence and oppression to maintain power for a long time even while everything crumbles around them.
Climate groups also don't necessarily support it when it is a straightforward win-win. If we increase the transport of natural gas in New England and Europe, we are (1) displacing dirtier fuels, (2) boosting the US economy, (3) supporting labor unions, (4) improving Democrats political position, and (5) advancing strategic geopolitical goals.
On the other hand, if you believe that US is a dangerous capitalist imperialist power that must be weakened and defeated to save the world and the climate, then it makes perfect sense to sandbag it. In other words, maybe we should say "The Anti-Americanism is the point".
Early in the article, there is the observation that: "I think Obama tended to) tell them what he thinks they should want."
Towards the end, there is the assertion that: "It all comes from rejecting interest group demands as given, and instead thinking about what their interests are and how better deals can be configured."
There is some tension between these two. The idea that you should move beyond someone's concrete ask to their further goals so as to open the way to outside the box win-win solutions is a staple of negotiation trainings. Obama's mistake was that Relublicans / conservatives don't really care about their stated philosophical ideals. That's just nicer sounding BS to retort in an argument.
The problem with this is timeframes. Sanctions are meant to coerce behavior changes, and they come with the principle that when the behavior changes, the sanctions go away. Meanwhile, oil and gas permitting is effectively forever. If you're a dedicated environmentalist, why would you agree to reductions in Russia's oil drilling that we might be obligated to lift at some point in exchange for a permanent increase in US output? It's only an easy swap if you expect the sanctions to last forever.
To understand Biden’s presidency, view him as a leader of a parliamentary coalition who always optimizes for the support of coalition partners. The difference between this view and MY’s framing is that finding the best policy outcome isn’t the objective.
It seems that the climate change issue should be handled more like the YIMBY movement, with a lot of technocrats quietly focusing on one issue and one issue alone. YIMBYs aren't organizing to block highways, and making their secondary demand the end Israel.
Are we not trying to enforce our sanctions already? What's the offer here?
Again, I recommend you to be one of Kamala‘s most prominent economists! IMO It has been truly nuts to keep Trump’s tariffs on our European Allies. We definitely need to work across silos. We also must continue to get Administrations and Congress to recognize the ongoing need to build infrastructure for recipes for Climate Change.
The problem here is that environmental groups focus on _supply_ (and worse _US_ supply) instead of _global demand_ as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, it sometimes appears they hardly care about how much their actions will reduce global CO2 emissions at all.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
Excellent post, Matthew. I agree wholeheartedly. Even more than that, there’s a moral clarity in increasing oil production in democratic countries and decreasing oil production in countries where the government oppresses and steals resources from their citizens. Leif Wenar’s “Blood Oil” covers this argument well.
It’s also important to note that our sanctions program against Russia, while containing a lot of sanctions numerically, is no where close to the strongest sanctions program we have imposed on an adversary. Secondary sanctions have only been recently imposed, and the big question is how rigorously they will be enforced. Secondary sanctions are the bazooka very few people understand.
http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2024/07/china-is-slowly-joining-economic-war.html?m=1
Some people in the US Left are uncomfortable with the sanctions regime and wouldn’t feel comfortable making a common cause.
I also suspect that the NatSec guys who are gung ho for sanctions probably don’t like environmentalists.
To quibble: "a virtue out of weakness" seems overly judgmental. You were prepared to give Biden credit for finding the deal, as a good legislator before, and I see no reason to avoid coming to the same conclusion here; in many ways I think Biden has gone out of his way to find the deal. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it's failed, but the strategy was largely the same in both cases.
Overall, I personally vastly prefer Biden's low key presence to the constant in your face approach of Obama and Trump. Presidents aren't gods, and while Biden comes off as feeble: I think the facts of the case show this is not true. Biden isn't hiding, he's playing to his strengths.
Brilliant column, thank you.
Perhaps, the environmentalist groups do want global degrowth, global reduction in oil production, and should they be at the table they might demand both - reduction domestically and internationally (sanctions) - rather than be sensible. They would like oil consumption to reduce through higher (supply constraint driven) prices. They know advocating for a transparent higher price (carbon tax) is a non starter and hence this side door approach is perfectly reasonable to them. To me, this is eerily similar to the many progressive solutions that take the form of ban, mandate, license raj, etc.
Would anyone have guess that the Cuban, Venezuelan and Iranian revolutions would have lasted this long when they happened? In the face of American sanction activity? Can’t reward intransigent states with trade, but sanctions does not seem a very effective strategy.
Venezuela is really the most surprising of those three to me. I was skeptical that it would last more than two or three years after Chavez's death since it seemed to be based so much on a cult of personality. Cuba, I expected to undergo some form of democratization after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, but obviously at this point it's not really surprising any longer that it's still holding up. Iran is the least surprising to me, but I have the benefit of having a B.A. in Middle Eastern History, and I think Americans really just can't wrap their heads around the mindset of large parts of the population of the historical Islamic "heartland" region, i.e., lots of people really do sincerely believe in the tenets of their religion and are willing to suffer quite a bit of authoritarianism because they think that it is divinely approved.
I think we all need to reset our priors when it comes to autocrats. Tragically, quick downfalls are very much the exception, not the rule.
I think authoritarians are fine with imposing suffering on their people and can use violence and oppression to maintain power for a long time even while everything crumbles around them.
Regarding today's post -- well, I guess they can't all be bangers.
Better luck tomorrow.
If successful, this would have no net effect on global emissions, but would raise US emissions, which would freak out environmentalists.