In fact, U.S. gas exports could help green up the global energy mix, just as increased domestic gas use has helped the United States cut carbon emissions by 526 million metric tons between 2005 and 2011.
This happened in part because U.S. gas displaced U.S. coal, a record 125 million tons of which were - you guessed it - exported in 2012, according to the Energy Department.
Given the opportunity, some foreign buyers might well switch to U.S. gas, especially in carbon-conscious Japan and Europe.
In short, free trade in energy - like free trade generally - facilitates price discovery, which, in turn, enables efficient allocation. The only losers are those governments or corporations that reap short-term windfalls from protectionism of one kind or another.
That's also a good argument for lifting the United States' outmoded ban on crude oil exports.
It was established in 1975, a time of rising Middle Eastern oil power and declining U.S. oil production.
Markey came to Congress in that bygone era and, alas, his thinking on oil exports hasn't evolved much.
"American oil should be kept here to benefit our consumers, not shipped to Europe or Asia to help boost oil company profits," he harrumphed in March.
It's a tad unfair to single out Markey. Many others share his simplistic views on gas exports - including the Sierra Club, key Democrats in Congress and leading chemical manufacturers.
The last group uses gas as a feedstock, so it wants federal help suppressing its price.
Still, Markey could do more mischief as a member of the majority in the Senate than he can in his current post as ranking minority member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
President Obama would be wise to adopt a more up-to-date approach, as he seems inclined to do.
Booming U.S. energy production promises to transform this country and the world, mostly for the better. To reap the full benefits, though, we must embrace the change rather than resist it.
Lane is a member of The Washington Post's editorial board.