I’m a promethean ecomodernist. So let me tell you why Americans should embrace the oil & gas industry and Billionaires as the best path to putting those fucking hippies who are ruining the climate and democracy in their place.

Make sure to read both Jonathan and Ketan's threads, noting in particular Ketan's reference to an oil & gas exec who stated "supply leads demands." This is a function not just of economics, but active efforts by O&G to create & defend demand for fossil fuels. Put simply: They will not go quietly.

Please read the @justinmikulka.bsky.social piece linked to one post above this. The same issues apply to corn ethanol and associated pipelines, which are a small piece of O&G dependency infrastructure but have a massive land use footprint and cause multiple types of air and water pollution.

Real talk about U.S. oil production. And why centrist O&G boosters, under the pretext of "energy abundance" & "all of the above" energy, are fools: The U.S. must manage the decline & retirement of O&G infrastructure—not hype it to serve short-sighted pundit logic that will invariably backfire.

It is true that the path that we have been on was Never going to get us where we needed to go in terms of meeting the Paris Agreement & limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees, HOWEVER, calling capitulation realistic is taking the wrong lesson from the past year of climate inaction and policy failure

Reading this type of incrementalist capitulation by David Victor in the The New York Times is really disappointing (though not particularly surprising). www-nytimes-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/2025/12/27/o...

Tough to ignore the role of big tech in all of this. Google in particular seems to be eagerly transforming into a far-right-friendly energy player, seizing the vulnerable infrastructure of the energy transition and repurposing it all to serve an energy agenda that supports fossil gas, CCS, nukes etc

'Climate pragmatism' is logically broken for many reasons but among the worst imo is: (a) arguing against limiting fossil supply, bc cheap solar + free market will sort it out but (b) supporting data centre growth so new clean energy DOESN'T cut down on fossil demand, and just meets growth instead

Love this whole 🧵👆🏼👇🏼. This point in particular hits me given the relentless arguments from centrist climate folk that society must cozy up to O&G and Big Tech and concurrent attacks on the progressive climate left.

One thing 2025 made clear: Durable progress on climate in the US will require structural reform to our corrupted political systems. Otherwise, steps forward will always be vulnerable to the bloody clawbacks we saw this year. A political strategy that doesn't center system reform is not "pragmatic."

Why is there so little overlap between people with large platforms who 1) have a good grasp of how politics actually work these days and 2) are paying close attention to climate change?

Centrism as now composed is, in the words of the late poet John O’Donohue, little more than “fester of small mediocrities.”

The last time the Dallas Cowboys made the NFC Championship Game, George Burns and Gene Kelly were still alive and RENT was months away from debuting on Broadway. The Baltimore Ravens were not yet an NFL team.

I'm sure the 22 million people whose healthcare premiums will triple in six days are delighted by this news, you inhuman fuck.

"Did you see what Mark Cuban posted? Oh did you see the clapb—" You shake yourself awake in the cold North Atlantic water. You are not online. It is July of 1858. You are a baleen whale, and you have changed your mind. The future most not come to pass. The telegraph cable must break.

Will brings up she can do this because her campaign "virtually prints money," but her campaign virtually prints money because she does stuff like this. There is an enormous appetite to do good things right now in a system that rewards greed and evil. This very contrast created that money machine.

Tax these technofascists into oblivion.

There is a big difference between what politicians must do to win elections and what people in the climate movement should advocate for.

Thinking abt Matty's ideas of what it takes for us to get elected... shouldn't we also dump gun control, it's costing us votes... women's health incl abortion, not very popular w/evangelicals... LGBTQ+ issues or immigration? Why fight for them... b/c liberals fight for what is right, Matty.

If you spend your whole time criticizing progressive climate advocates who have concluded fossil fuels, one reasonable conclusion to draw is that you're just a shill for fossil fuels.

I love that Jesse Jenkins thinks, apparently, that 1) market-based and oil-company led climate initiatives have not failed, and 2) there's some path to net zero that doesn't require ending the expansion of fossil fuels, and 3) that anyone in the climate movement acts like "politics don't matter."

“Producers in the Permian Basin…produce copious amounts of toxic, salty water, which they pump back into the ground…It is creating a huge mess.” Undeterred… “The basin is trying to lure data centers with cheap land and energy and has plans to become a hub for burying carbon dioxide…”

"Swaths of the Permian Basin appear to be on the verge of geological malfunction." An unfolding disaster, shielded by centrist pundits who tell us to "support America's oil & gas industry." Here's an idea: The oil & gas industry should support America, not wreck our land, air, & water.

It’s all so predictable, performative, and perfunctory at this point. And that’s a wee bit unnerving.

People defending Yglesias’ view that “Liberals should support America’s O&G industry” view policy through the mechanistic lens of finance, economics, & engineering. They’re oblivious to ecology & community. Which makes it quite ironic when they tell critics to “touch grass.”

"Like Amazon Prime, but with human beings."

"Hard-to-abate" is sometimes code for "we haven't looked closely yet." This great new report shows opportunities for clean heat (low/medium-temp industrial process heat) through electrification, which also has public health benefits.

All of these bootlegged copies of the 60 Minutes segment flooding my feed (saying, ‘Watch it quick! Before it disappears!’) makes me feel like I’m in the Soviet Union and just got some black market foreign newspaper I need to hide under a floorboard in my house. This is where America is now

Tonight's sunset clouds. Holy mackerel.

The path to liberation is in kinship—aligning our evolution *with* Earth's ecological abundance (+ w/i its ceiling) while building a social foundation that honors our neighbor's humanity. It is not found in obeisance to oil & gas under the pretext of "realism." Too many must be reminded of this.

!! Here’s a link to full video of the 60 Minutes segment that Bari Weiss killed last minute, via @jasonparis.bsky.social: is.gd/paU8Ko (It was uploaded to the Global TV app in Canada, seemingly by accident, and has now been taken down)

Matt Yglesias and his followers are so driven by their desire to NEVER seem extreme, to always seem moderate, they they cannot accept the reality of an objectively extreme situation even when scientists are shouting about it from the rooftops

Matt Yglesias consistently treats net zero as if it’s some arbitrary goal that activists want, not a goal that scientists say is necessary to preserve a livable planet for all. He so badly wants a solution that sounds "reasonable" that he's willing to ignore and dismiss scientific reality.

Truly a Big Fucking Deal.

Read this. @sammyroth.bsky.social gets it.

A lot of the money that goes into non-partisan and bipartisan campaigns at this point is attracting people with limited to outright bad political analysis and is giving unearned cover to right wingers who are nuking democracy, among other horrors.

This, too, from the same poem is 🔥.

Glad we're building out AI data centers by modeling the behavior of a plague of locusts.

The permitting reform “debate” is a sterling example of some misguided liberals inventing a reasonable conservative position to engage with that simply isn’t held by any conservatives with the power to implement it.

"Abundance bros, from Yglesias to Trembath to Stapp, ride on the perception that they are politically savvy, data driven thinkers. But they're just a bunch of hacks who get shit catastrophically wrong." That last bit should count for something. But apparently not to the NYT.

Petrostate politics. This is what happens when you embrace the "energy dominance" of fossil fuels. Remember, too, that the Abundance bros embraced Burgum. When Burgum was appointed, Yglesias said he was "a totally solid pick who'll do good things." And he wasn't alone.

What a 🤡 show. "National security" my ass. Doug Burgum is a national embarrassment. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/22/c...

It's 2025. The year began w/ raging fires in L.A. Trump takes power, halts climate action, & embraces authoritarianism. RU, a petrostate, continues its assault on UKR. You write an OpEd that "Liberals should support America’s O&G industry." Whether they pay u or not, you're a fossil fuel shill.

If you are confused about why saying "not all Somalis are criminals" is racist, try rephrasing it as "Tom Emmer doesn't get a DWI conviction every time he gets behind the wheel."

So Bari Weiss’s first real editorial intervention at CBS is to repress coverage of American concentration camps.

Per NY Times’s Michael Grynbaum on X, this is Sharyn Alfonsi’s email to her “60 Minutes” colleagues in full:

A real fuck you to the founders, the Constitution, and all of us Americans from non-Christian backgrounds.

This echoes the logic O&G companies have used for decades: Encourage the U.S. to extract & exploit fossil fuels + use proceeds to decarbonize. It’s just recycled “all of the above” logic that has brought us to this fraught moment. Look around: It doesn’t work! It’s the logic of a Petrostate!

Oil and gas production increased by record amounts under Biden, even though the US was already the world's biggest producer when he took office. So what does "move to the center on domestic oil and gas production" even mean? Stop supporting clean energy entirely? Forego all climate policy? What?