RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/04/04/bidens-low-energy-policy/#slide-1

The long-term danger in the president’s antipathy to fossil fuels.

Gas prices are high. Voters are upset. And Republicans want to blame Joe Biden’s energy policy.

It might be smart politics to do so, but it’s not exactly honest. Joe Biden has been in office only a little over a year, and he hasn’t undone decades of American energy progress. Oil production has risen on his watch, and depending on the week, we are still a net exporter of crude oil and other petroleum products.

That doesn’t mean Biden’s energy policy is any good. On the contrary, it should be opposed at every turn because it would make today’s anomalous situation the norm for years to come.

First, let’s dispel some myths about so-called energy independence. After a steady decline in net imports that began around 2006, the U.S. became a net ex­porter of crude oil and other petroleum products for the first time ever the week of November 30, 2018.

The United States has never been a net exporter of crude oil alone, and it has never really been all that close to being one. The week of April 10, 2020, saw U.S. net exports of crude and other petroleum products reach their highest level on record, at over 2 million barrels per day. That week, the U.S. imported over 2 million barrels per day of crude oil on net but exported over 4 million barrels per day of other petroleum products on net.

The reason for that is America’s re­fineries. There are 126 oil refineries in the U.S. and only about 700 in the entire world. Companies from around the globe send their crude oil to American refineries, which counts as crude-oil importation to the U.S. Then the refined products get shipped around the world, which counts as other-petroleum-product exportation.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/03/18/putins-invasion-shows-green-activists-still-red-on-the-inside/

The old yet always relevant joke is that environmentalists are like watermelons, green on the outside but red(s) on the inside. If there have ever been any delusions to the contrary, they should have been erased by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, paid for by energy bought from Russia because eco-radicals have successfully cut fossil fuel production in the West.

Last week, the ​​Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee held a “hearing to examine the use of energy as a tool and a weapon.” In the hands of Russia, the tool has been sharpened, the weapon made more lethal by advanced nations’ increased reliance on that country’s oil and gas due to policy decisions demanded by green zealots.

Maybe there’s an argument to be made that environmental activists and their allies among elected officials (and unelected United Nations officials who wield great power) are merely useful or accidental idiots, their goals coincidentally empowering regimes that are hardly democratically representative of their populations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-climate-delusions-green-new-deal-fossil-fuels-energy-politics-ukraine-russia-oil-drilling-gas-11647553480?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

Republicans know it. The European left knows it. Joe Manchin knows it. Even some of the Beltway press knows it. Now let’s see how long it takes Joe Biden to recognize that the Ukraine war has reset energy politics and that his climate agenda risks dooming his party this fall.

He certainly hasn’t sussed it out yet. The Joe Biden who showed up Monday at his first in-person fundraiser as president sounded like a man in a time warp. “Let me begin by saying: [Climate change] is the existential threat to humanity,” he opened, proceeding to recite an environmental agenda identical to the one he campaigned on. Ukraine got one mention, and only then as further reason why Americans (among other things) need to “weatherize homes and businesses.”

His administration is similarly proceeding as if Vladimir Putin weren’t exploiting his energy dominance to kill Ukrainians. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently announced a new pipeline review policy that will stop most projects. The White House continues its near-moratorium on new leases to drill on federal land and its block of Alaskan drilling. The president announced he’ll attempt to impose his Green New Deal via executive order. The House Progressive Caucus this week offered ideas, calling on him to “declare a national climate emergency,” and use it to ban “fossil fuel leases,” and force companies to build renewables under the Defense Production Act.

Across the pond, things look exactly opposite. The Europeans have embraced the climate religion with a fervor to rival Bernie Sanders. Yet Mr. Putin’s shocking violence in Ukraine—his willingness to wield energy as a weapon—sobered the Continent overnight. No one is giving up on renewables, but nobody is any longer pretending they are the basis of energy reliability or security. Fossil fuels will remain for decades a currency of global power, and Russia’s invasion highlights the stupidity of being broke.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/carbonfree_nuclear_power.html

Carbon-free nuclear energy is an essential component of America’s energy security and clean energy program of reducing carbon emissions in order to reduce global warming.

Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) power 60% of the electricity produced in America, emitting 5,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy produces 20% of the electricity and emits 0 tons of carbon dioxide.

Ninety-three nuclear reactors in fifty-six plants are located in twenty-eight states. The average age of the reactors is thirty-nine years. Currently, there are only two nuclear reactors under construction in America in Vogtle, Georgia. Twenty-three reactors are shut down or are in various stages of decommissioning: Illinois (9), Pennsylvania (8) and South Carolina (7) lead the nation in number of nuclear reactors.

Carbon Free Nuclear Energy Advantages

The Biden Administration is cautiously embracing nuclear energy to meet its green goals. The administration’s climate advisor, Gina McCarthy, states nuclear power reactors are “absolutely essential” in meeting Biden’s climate projections of a net-zero carbon economy. Congress passed an infrastructure bill which devotes $8.5 billion to fund advanced nuclear reactor development, funding of small modular reactors (SMRs), and financially compromised existing nuclear plants.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=ab8ca5e27c

Here’s the single most important function of this blog: Saying the things that are patently obvious but that just can’t be said these days in polite society. Yes, it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes every day here at Manhattan Contrarian.

With war raging in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, there is a renewed concern in many quarters for “energy independence.” Until recently, the sophisticated countries of Europe had thought the whole idea to be passé. They built large numbers of wind turbines and solar arrays, while simultaneously banning fracking for natural gas and shuttering electricity plants that used coal and even those that used no-carbon nuclear. Suddenly, at the very worst possible time, they found themselves completely dependent on Russian gas for heat and reliable electricity. In the U.S. it’s not nearly so bad (yet), but the combination of the Ukraine invasion with the Biden administration’s resumption of Obama’s war on fossil fuels has also left the U.S. vulnerable to an oil and gas price spike on world markets, whose supply side has been artificially reduced by government hostility to production of fossil fuels.

So what’s the answer? If you are a member in good standing in American media/academia/environmentalist/Democratic Party society, the answer is obvious: Just build more wind turbines and solar arrays until you have enough. These facilities will count as “domestic” electricity generation, and therefore will quickly lead to “energy independence.” What could be easier?

So permit me to say the blindingly obvious: No amount of incremental wind and solar power can ever provide energy independence.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/climate-change-is-not-an-existential-threat

The Biden administration’s climate change policies have sharply increased oil prices, damaging the domestic economy and increasing the cost of nearly everything consumers buy. By increasing revenues for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime, they also made Russia stronger and more dangerous at a critical time, thus damaging national security. It is worth noting that Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, and Ukraine again this year each happened after an oil price spike.

But worst of all, the Biden administration’s basis for these policies, the claim that global warming presents an “existential threat,” is fraudulent. It is not based on any scientific consensus, and in fact, it ignores evidence of environmental benefits of global warming that offset its harm.

1

Studies published in May 2015, July 2021, and August 2021 analyzed millions of deaths in numerous countries over recent decades and found that cooler temperatures kill several times more people than warmer temperatures. “Global warming,” environmental statistician Bjørn Lomborg wrote in September 2021, “now prevents more than 166,000 temperature-related fatalities annually.”

Matt Ridley’s February 2022 essay explained that global warming has increased both agricultural yields and growth of forests, grasslands, and tree leaves.

The facts regarding natural disasters also do not support the “existential threat” claim. The number of hurricanes per year, a 2021 EPA report shows, has not increased since the late 19th century. Moreover, although you wouldn’t know it from the panicky, sensationalized news coverage, the total acreage burnt by forest fires annually has decreased, and most rivers flood less today than they used to.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/ipcc-there-is-no-climate-crisis/

“No climate crisis” is, of course, not the spin the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is putting on its new 3,676-page report released last month. “The choices we make in the next decade will determine our future,” the IPCC says. “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”

It could hardly be plainer. The report is political advocacy barely masquerading as science.

The IPCC Working Group II report is not meant to be about policy; that’s the job of Working Group III, which has yet to produce its contribution to the sixth assessment report. “The focus of our new report is on solutions,” the IPCC says of the Working Group II report. “It highlights the importance of fundamental changes in society.” The solution to climate change, the IPCC claims, is renewable energy, circular economies, healthy diets, universal health coverage and social protection. The only surprise is that the IPCC didn’t include abolishing the Second Amendment in its climate catechism.

“Scientific evidence shows that addressing the risks and impacts of climate change successfully involves a more a diverse set of actors than previously thought” and involves partnerships with “traditionally marginalized groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities (high confidence).” How on earth did the IPCC exclude the LBGTQ+ community? “Different interests, values and worldviews can be reconciled if everyone works together,” the IPCC says. This isn’t science. It’s climate kumbaya.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/12/bidens_america-wrecking_climate_agenda_147323.html

President Biden is driving fossil fuel-powered America into a wall so that he can replace it with a “green energy”-powered America. The Biden administration euphemizes this as a “transition.” It is not. It’s just a collision that will result in America being totaled.

Since Joe Biden became president, he has done everything in his power to de-power America. On Day 1, he killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, halted new oil and gas drilling on public lands, and rejoined the Paris climate agreement, which commits America to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions but not China’s.

Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency reinstated Obama-era rules to make it more expensive to produce oil and gas, issued rules to make internal combustion engine-powered cars more expensive, and gave “green” California the unprecedented (and probably unconstitutional) authority to dictate what kind of cars all Americans can drive. Biden has empowered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to block new oil and gas pipelines on the basis of climate concerns, and is continuing to halt new oil and gas drilling on federal lands in defiance of a federal court order.

These and many other anti-fossil fuel actions have raised gasoline prices roughly one dollar per gallon since Biden took office. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, exacerbating an ongoing global energy crisis (worsened by European climate policies). Gasoline prices have increased another 60 cents since the Ukraine invasion, and are not likely to stop rising any time soon.

Normally in response to such an energy crisis, a U.S. president might at least temporarily put aside an unpopular political agenda to ease supply issues and alleviate pain at the pump. Not Joe Biden. He is doing anything but that. Biden first announced during his State of the Union address that he and other allied nations were going to release 60 million barrels of oil from national strategic petroleum reserves around the world, including 30 million from the United States.

https://www.city-journal.org/states-waging-war-on-fossil-fuels

The war in Ukraine has sent world oil prices soaring and the Biden administration scrambling to find new energy supplies. Even Tesla founder Elon Musk, whose business model is built on supplying Americans with luxury electric-powered vehicles, has said that the United States needs to increase oil and gas production. “Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures,” Musk recently tweeted.

But apparently the times haven’t been extraordinary enough to deter some states from their war on fossil fuels. Governors and legislators in several states are plunging ahead with a pipeline ban, new taxes, and added regulatory oversight—all aimed at raising prices further and weaning Americans off natural gas and oil.

Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer is pursuing closure of a major oil and gas pipeline, the Enbridge Line 5, which carries supplies from Western Canada to energy users in five midwestern states. Whitmer says the line, in operation since 1953, would present an environmental problem if it were to rupture in the portion that runs underwater beneath the Straits of Mackinac connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron—though that hasn’t happened in nearly 70 years. To allay fears, the pipeline owner, Enbridge, wants to move it into a tunnel dug below the straits, but Whitmer has decreed instead that the line be shut. A new study estimates that individuals and businesses in the five affected states would spend $23 billion more on energy costs over the next five years if the line closes, on top of any additional energy costs resulting from a sustained war in Ukraine. Hardest hit would be users in Michigan and Ohio, who would each sustain about $2 billion a year in new costs.