Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior | All-In DC

The Biden administration has temporarily suspended approval of natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries as part of its ongoing effort to balance energy production with aggressive climate change goals. As Democrats prepare for the 2024 presidential election, they must balance the economic benefits of increasing natural gas exports with fulfilling climate change pledges.

Because green energy can be produced almost anywhere in some form—wind, solar, hydropower, and so on—the shift to renewables will steer power away from countries and firms with exclusive access to fossil fuels. Gaining an edge in technology development is likely to be the most important factor in determining who pulls ahead.

Though it’s become widely accepted that climate change is real, the questions still remain of what steps we should take to fix the damage and whether they'll be enough. Many scientists and activists believe that the climate has already passed a tipping point and that environmental catastrophe is inevitable. In Apocalypse Never, award-winning science writer Michael Shellenberger says that it’s time to assess the crisis from a rational perspective. He argues that we’re in a much better position to curb climate change than alarmists would have us believe, and that people who bend scientific truth in order to spur environmental action are doing more harm than good.

In this guide, we’ll explain Shellenberger’s argument that environmental alarmists overstate their claims and that there’s ground for hope for our planet’s future. We’ll also look at counter-arguments to Shellenberger’s claims and examine what independent research says about the solutions he suggests. We’ll point to recent developments in industry, agriculture, and the political climate that frame the conversation around climate change.

The Biden administration has temporarily suspended approval of natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries as part of its ongoing effort to balance energy production with aggressive climate change goals. As Democrats prepare for the 2024 presidential election, they must balance the economic benefits of increasing natural gas exports with fulfilling climate change pledges.

On January 6, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a bill into law classifying natural gas as “green energy”—a label that could facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel’s production across the US. Tying the “green” label to a fossil fuel that drives global warming has created some confusion, but it’s a potentially powerful branding tool for US leaders seeking to advance their respective causes.

In Blowout, journalist and MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow aims to expose the corruption and exploitation underlying the oil and gas industry. Pointing the finger primarily at Russian politicians like Vladimir Putin and American energy magnates like former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Maddow contends that over the past 40 years, the industry has wreaked havoc on the environment, developing economies in the third world, and international relations, especially in Eastern Europe. Ultimately, she argues that only full transparency and strict environmental regulation can protect the planet from devastating accidents and corporate greed.

In this guide, we’ll discuss her evidence for how a handful of companies and politicians have exploited oil and gas reserves worldwide, both for profit and to serve dangerous political ends. We’ll also elaborate on how oil and gas have damaged the environment (perhaps permanently), how American energy policy continued to evolve under the Trump and Biden presidencies, and how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 further destabilized the international energy market.

Growing demand for AI is fueling a surge in energy consumption by data centers. This boom is straining power grids, burdening local communities, and making it difficult for tech giants to honor their green pledges.

Though it’s become widely accepted that climate change is real, the questions still remain of what steps we should take to fix the damage and whether they'll be enough. Many scientists and activists believe that the climate has already passed a tipping point and that environmental catastrophe is inevitable. In Apocalypse Never, award-winning science writer Michael Shellenberger says that it’s time to assess the crisis from a rational perspective. He argues that we’re in a much better position to curb climate change than alarmists would have us believe, and that people who bend scientific truth in order to spur environmental action are doing more harm than good.

In this guide, we’ll explain Shellenberger’s argument that environmental alarmists overstate their claims and that there’s ground for hope for our planet’s future. We’ll also look at counter-arguments to Shellenberger’s claims and examine what independent research says about the solutions he suggests. We’ll point to recent developments in industry, agriculture, and the political climate that frame the conversation around climate change.