Germany’s ‘Green’ Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States thumbnail

Germany’s ‘Green’ Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States

By The Geller Report

“No nation has anything approaching a clean energy economy. And those that have promised to build one are all struggling.”

By: David Harsanyi, The Federalist, June 21, 2022:

As gas hit historic highs, leftists keep arguing it’s a perfect time to transition to a “clean energy” economy. “Now is the moment to double-down, triple-down, and quadruple-down on clean energy,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted on Friday, linking to a CNN piece that contends “wind and solar” have been “bailing out” Texas during its recent heat wave.

In the piece we learn that wind, solar, and nuclear have “powered about 38% of the state’s power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%.” That’s quite the sleight of hand; tantamount to bragging about how Babe Ruth (60), Lou Gehrig (47), and Joe Dugan (2) combined for 109 home runs in 1927. True, but deceptive.

Subsidized solar power generates less than 2 percent of Texas’ energy during the year. Nuclear power generates around 10 percent and wind nearly 20. Coal accounts for nearly 15 percent and natural gas for more than 52 percent of electricity generation. It would be far more accurate to say that coal, nuclear, and gas are bailing out Texas.

No nation has anything approaching a clean energy economy. And those that have promised to build one are all struggling.

More than a decade ago, after a major earthquake caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster, German chancellor Angela Merkel announced her nation would close down all its nuclear power plants, at the same time quadrupling down on the decarbonization of its economy—energiewende. Once there were 17 reactors in Germany. Now there are only three remaining, all of which are scheduled to go offline by the end of the year.

The move to “clean energy”—without nuclear—has accomplished three things:

1. It has prompted Germany, and the rest of the EU, to begin relying more heavily on Russian natural gas as it “transitioned.” Putin, who has begun demanding EU nations pay for their energy in roubles, is now able to undercut the European economy at will.

2. It has created the highest global electricity prices per household in the world. In 2019, German households were paying 34 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to 13 cents in the United States. The price of energy has doubled since 2000, when Germany first mandated decarbonization, an effort that forced energy companies to purchase long-term inefficient renewables at high, fabricated prices.

3. It has meant the burning of coal. Even before Russia began cutting off supply, Germany was more reliant on coal than the United States. This week, Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck, who earlier this year rejected a European Union label of nuclear energy as “green,” announced that in an effort to avoid future gas shortages—because cars can’t run on wind—the government would incentivize the use of more coal-fired power plants.

The “transition” to green that Germany began 30 years ago has not worked. In 2000, Germany obtained 84 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. By 2019, it was 78 percent. As Vaclav Smil pointed out a couple of years ago, at this rate, Germany would still be deriving 70 percent of its energy from fossil fuels by the year 2050. With a move back to coal in 2022, it will surely be even later, if ever.

Setting aside the high cost of transitioning to renewable energy, and the failure of wind turbines and solar panels to produce energy in the winter, the intermittency problem is not going to be overcome in any season. To pull back on the only reliable “clean energy” source that can mitigate this problem has been suicidal.

Unlike Germany, we don’t even have to worry about pipelines from Russia; we are situated on a continent with abundant energy sources. Germany’s problems are self-inflicted. Ours will be, as well, if we follow its lead.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Record High Diesel Prices Threaten Domino Effect To Other Goods

By Casey Harper

Record high diesel fuel prices are yet another driver of rising costs for Americans, and those costs could get even higher this year.

Diesel gas prices hit another record high Thursday at $5.79 per gallon, according to AAA. That is a spike from $5.57 a month ago and much higher than the average of $3.22 the same time last year.

Diesel gas prices have continued to hit new records this week even as regular gas has leveled out, at least for the last couple of days.

Those higher prices are one of several factors raising costs for businesses, costs that are often passed down to consumers.

President Joe “Biden’s attack on the fossil fuel industry can be felt across every sector of the economy because everything needs energy,” said Daniel Turner, executive director of the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future. “So it’s not just gas prices. It is also consumer goods, food, and all services. The diesel prices are particularly alarming because of what machinery uses diesel: agriculture, trucks, and railroad. All cargo shipping is diesel powered. So the price of all food that is planted, irrigated, fertilized, harvested, processed, packaged, and transported is being made more expensive at every step of the process. All those costs are passed on to consumers.”

Food prices have soared in recent months. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 10.1% increase in the food index in the previous twelve months, “the first increase of 10 percent or more since the period ending March 1981.”

Food prices have been hit hard by Russian President Valdimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine since Ukraine is a major exporter for food and chemicals used in fertilizer, but several other factors have played a part, including inflation. BLS’ producer price index rose 10.8% in the past 12 months, and consumer prices are rising at the fastest pace in four decades.

Many of the food production costs that are hitting farmers now will not be felt by consumers until the crops are harvested and sent to market later on.

“We have not yet begun to see the cost of Biden’s war on energy, on food prices because we have not yet harvested,” Turner said. “It’s only late spring, and we are still eating last year’s wheat. Wait until late summer and early fall and we will see painfully high prices across the board, and we are woefully unprepared.

“Making energy expensive makes life expensive, and as we spend more money to fill up our cars and buy basic groceries, we will be spending less on entertainment, travel, dining, shopping, etc,” he added.

Diesel, though, is used to transporting all kinds of goods, not just food. Right now, businesses are paying more than ever to transport via diesel trucks while the market also deals with a truck driver shortage.

Those higher costs are one more supply chain issue facing the U.S. economy right now as prices on all kinds of goods rise.

Experts say higher energy costs will only make that worse if they remain elevated for an extended period of time.

“By the economics textbook, higher costs work themselves up through the supply side of the market and raise prices,” said Roger Cryan, chief economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, as previously reported by The Center Square. “The prices are especially high right now because of the sudden lack of access to Black Sea grain, but if these energy prices stay high in the long run then they will entirely work their way into food prices.”

Biden has taken heavy criticism for his energy policies from detractors who point to his policies that held back oil leases and pipeline development.

Biden has tried to deflect those critiques, pointing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which disrupted global oil markets. 

“Biden has got a case that there is a Russia shock, but the other side has also got a case that if the United States were producing more, the Russia shock wouldn’t be such a big deal,” said Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

“The Biden case is pretty weak when he … tries to make it sound like inflation is all Putin’s fault because of the oil and food prices because the truth of the matter was inflation was far too high before February 24 when Russia invaded Ukraine,” he added.

An Interesting Take on Electric Cars from a Conversation thumbnail

An Interesting Take on Electric Cars from a Conversation

By Save America Foundation

If electric cars do not use gasoline, they will not be paying a gasoline tax on every gallon sold for automobiles, which was enacted to maintain our roads and bridges. They will use the roads and bridges, but will not pay for their maintenance!


As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I have been troubled by the fact that the electrical energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.

In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car.

Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.

Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things, yet they’re being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.

If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you will face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On a small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.

This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This later “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an ‘OOPS…!’ and a shrug.

If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.

Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, “For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA!

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

ESG: Is This Green Iron-fist Fantasy a Major Cause of Inflation and Economic Destruction? thumbnail

ESG: Is This Green Iron-fist Fantasy a Major Cause of Inflation and Economic Destruction?

By Selwyn Duke

Is rich people’s greentopian fantasy causing middle-class misery? The answer is yes, according to analysts such as Marlo Oaks, Utah state treasurer, and longtime investment manager. In fact, Oaks says he knows a major reason why increasing fuel prices, which drive up costs across the board, are so high:

Supply is being choked off by “woke” capital investors who favor green dreams over fossil-fuel practicality.

Making his case, the Utah official states that in 2015 there were 59 funds globally among institutional investors that raised $46.6 billion for oil and gas projects. Yet note what happened during the next six years:

By 2021, there were only 11 funds and $4.6 billion raised — a drop of more than 90 percent.

Oaks fingers as the culprit something called ESG. What is ESG? Standing for Environmental, Social, and Governance, it is, technically and ostensibly, “the measurement of the impact (both positive and negative) that a business has on the environment and on society including an assessment of the governance practices (or lack thereof) that impact all stakeholders,” explains Certainty.

But in practice, avers Oaks, it’s not so innocuous. In fact, he states that the only logical explanation for the drastic 2015-2021 fossil-fuel investment collapse is ESG. “People have decided that they do not want to participate in the fossil fuel industry and so are cutting off capital,” he says.

The Utah treasurer made his comments on an edition of Tucker Carlson Today, a relevant excerpt of which was played yesterday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Host Carlson introduced the topic, stating that the idea behind ESG “is to push corporate America left and punish companies that disagree with the orthodoxy.”

One of the entities/people responsible for this — mentioned during the Carlson segment — is multinational investment management corporation BlackRock and its chairman and CEO, billionaire Larry Fink. The New American reported on Fink’s “woke capital” schemes in the February article “Unseen Dark Hand: The Man Who Uses YOUR Money to Make Corporations Go Woke.”

As for Oaks, making the case that ESG is largely responsible for rising prices, he told Carlson:

So if you think about value-based investment strategies, historically there’s been socially responsible investing, yes, and impact investing more recently. So socially responsible investing is really the idea that you avoid certain companies that you don’t want to participate in; so it might be tobacco, firearms, gambling [because they’re contrary to your values].

…Okay, and then on the other side is impact investing, where you’re looking for innovation to solve a problem. So it might be cancer, for example: If you’re worried about cancer or interested in that, you might look for companies to invest in that have innovation that can help solve that problem.

ESG is an outgrowth of socially responsible investing, and instead of just avoiding companies, ESG actively engages with companies and engages with the market to drive a political outcome.

In other words, ESG-oriented puppeteers such as BlackRock don’t just refrain from investing in oil and gas projects, but actually, pressure other companies to not do so.

In fact, today’s inflation really starts with ESG because, if you think about … why gasoline prices are so high, a lot of it is a supply issue. And the reason that we don’t have enough supply in this country, one reason why, is we don’t have enough capital going in to oil and gas projects.

So in 2015 there were 59 funds raised globally among institutional investors; 46.6 billion dollars was raised. Six years later, in 2021, 11 funds were raised — 4.6 billion dollars — a drop of over 90 percent in the face of improving economics in oil and gas. The only explanation … that makes sense is ESG:

People have decided that they do not want to participate in the fossil fuel industry and so are cutting off capital.

There is an active drive, and we’ve heard it from this [Biden] administration, to cut off capital to the fossil fuel industry. It’s very troubling.

Carlson then pointed out that when Oaks says “people have decided,” at issue is really “a very small number of people who make these investment decisions. So it’s not the people who are participating in the fund at the retail level.” It’s puppeteers such as Larry Fink, stated Carlson (video below).

It gets even worse, though, according to Vivek Ramaswamy, founder of Strive Asset Management. Speaking on CNBC’s Squawk Box last week, he accused massive ESG-oriented entities of an anti-trust violation. Ramaswamy stated that not only do these companies collude in a way that causes rising, budget-busting gasoline prices, but they apply their greentopian standards only to the United States and Europe. Thus are they stifling our energy production to the benefit of foreign corporations such as PetroChina. And what is one of PetroChina’s major shareholders?

BlackRock.

So these woke firms are essentially saying, “ESG for thee, China for me,” states Ramaswamy (video below). Note, too, that China is our world’s biggest polluter by far.

So it’s the spirit of (pre)1776: MASA — Make America Subjugated Again. The only real question is, if these puppeteers were purposely trying to destroy the U.S., what would they do differently?

*****

This article was published by The New American and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here’s How Gas Prices Rank Around the Country thumbnail

Here’s How Gas Prices Rank Around the Country

By Casey Harper

Gas prices have hit record highs day after day in recent weeks, breaking the $5 mark over the weekend for the first time ever.

Those higher prices have put many Americans in a bind as they also deal with the highest inflation in decades.

The national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas hit a record-high $5.01 Monday, up from $4.43 a month ago and much higher than the price of $3.08 this time last year.

All 50 states around the country have seen major price hikes, though some more than others.

With average prices varying by state, here is the breakdown, from highest to lowest, of the regular gas price for every state in the nation.

Gas Prices State Ranking

State Current Price Price One Month Ago Price One Year Ago
1. California $6.44 $5.87 $4.23
2. Nevada $5.66 $5.14 $3.66
3. Alaska $5.57 $4.82 $3.37
4. Illinois $5.56 $4.81 $3.35
5. Washington $5.55 $4.92 $3.62
6. Oregon $5.54 $4.90 $3.47
7. Hawaii $5.53 $5.31 $3.97
8. Arizona $5.32 $4.72 $3.12
9. Indiana $5.22 $4.41 $3.05
10. Michigan $5.22 $4.35 $3.17
11. Idaho $5.10 $4.50 $3.29
12. Maine $5.08 $4.46 $3.06
13. Pennsylvania $5.07 $4.58 $3.18
14. New Jersey $5.06 $4.50 $3.07
15. Ohio $5.05 $4.29 $3.03
16. Massachusetts $5.05 $4.48 $2.95
17. Vermont $5.05 $4.48 $2.99
18. New York $5.04 $4.68 $3.11
19. Rhode Island $5.02 $4.46 $2.97
20. Maryland $5.02 $4.41 $2.99
21. Utah $5.02 $4.48 $3.37
22. New Hampshire $5.00 $4.40 $2.94
23. Delaware $4.99 $4.40 $2.97
24. Connecticut $4.98 $4.40 $3.09
25. Wisconsin $4.92 $4.20 $2.92
26. West Virginia $4.91 $4.24 $3.00
27. Montana $4.91 $4.27 $2.96
28. Florida $4.89 $4.47 $2.97
29. Colorado $4.88 $4.12 $3.22
30. Virginia $4.86 $4.27 $2.93
31. New Mexico $4.83 $4.28 $2.97
32. Kentucky $4.80 $4.22 $2.91
33. North Dakota $4.77 $4.11 $2.89
34. Minnesota $4.76 $4.10 $2.86
35. Wyoming $4.76 $4.24 $3.14
36. Nebraska $4.76 $4.09 $2.91
37. Iowa $4.74 $4.13 $2.87
38. South Dakota $4.72 $4.14 $2.93
39. Missouri $4.68 $4.03 $2.76
40. North Carolina $4.67 $4.21 $2.88
41. Kansas $4.66 $3.99 $2.85
42. Texas $4.66 $4.11 $2.76
43. Tennessee $4.64 $4.17 $2.88
44. Oklahoma $4.64 $4.00 $2.75
45. Alabama $4.63 $4.14 $2.82
46. South Carolina $4.61 $4.13 $2.80
47. Louisiana $4.55 $4.09 $2.72
48. Arkansas $4.54 $4.01 $2.77
49. Mississippi $4.52 $4.02 $2.72
50. Georgia $4.48 $3.95 $2.91

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Davos Reminds: Other Countries Aren’t Committing Economic Suicide For Climate Change

By Seton Motley

In very many WEFs past, lots of countries have made lots of climate change pledges and promises. They then moved on as if they never said anything – and kept doing what they had always been doing.

“One-third of the roughly 270 WEF panel discussions in Davos will focus on climate change or its effects, with extreme weather, efforts to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and finding new, cleaner sources of energy on the agenda.”

Of course, the world’s globalist billionaire “leaders” are all members of the “Do As I Say – Not As I Do” Club.

Just How Much CO2 Did Woke Elites Spew Flying Private Jets To Davos?:

“Overall, roughly 1,500 private jets flew to and from airports near Davos for the WEF annual meeting in 2019, according to an analysis from Air Charter Service, The Guardian reported at the time. The firm didn’t conduct a similar analysis for this year’s conference, a spokesperson told TheDCNF.”

Get that?  When the number of private jets flying in to discuss “climate change” is an embarrassment?  Stop counting the private jets.

At Davos, Are Leaders’ Private Jets and Limos Actually Hurting Climate-Change Efforts?

Gee, ya think?

If you still take these globalists seriously – about anything?  You’re either not paying attention – or are irretrievably stupid.

In very many WEFs past, lots of countries have made lots of climate change pledges and promises.  They then moved on as if they never said anything – and kept doing what they had always been doing.

And as is always the case when people get away with things?  These countries are attempting to get away with bigger and more brazen things.

Having faced zero consequences for lying about doing climate change things?

Not a Single G20 Country Is in Line with the Paris Agreement on Climate, Analysis Shows

Nations now increasingly don’t even bother to lie.  To wit: China, Russia, and India are the three biggest “emitters” not named the US….

Cop26: China, India and Russia Must ‘Do More’ to Tackle Climate Crisis

Except….

China, Russia, India, Worlds Top 3 Methane Emitters, Won’t Pledge to Cut Emissions

China, India, and Russia Aren’t Interested in Updating Their Emissions Targets Before 2025

And they tell lies so biliously preposterous – they are utterly unenforceable even if they weren’t lying.

India Targets 2070 for Net-Zero Emissions

China’s Contentious Path to Net-Zero by 2060

Russia Aims to Reach Net Zero Emissions by 2060

Just about none of the globalist fat cats (emphasis on “fat”) bearing witness to these Davos climate “pledges” will be alive in 2060 when they first begin coming due.  If any of these nations actually intended on adhering to them – which they absolutely do not.

India, China, Russia Kill Climate Deal

These international climate “pledges” aren’t worth the very many dead trees on which they’re printed.  They are nothing but gassy, sound-good soundbites.

Because these countries wish not to commit economic suicide.  And I certainly don’t blame them.

But exceedingly awful president Joe Biden is rigorously determined to commit US economic suicide on our behalf.

Biden Commits to Cutting U.S. Emissions in Half by 2030

That means the US economy doesn’t grow – it shrinks by about 50%.  In eight years.  And as I’m sure you’ve noticed – what with the heinously horrendous economy in which we all are mired?  Biden isn’t just saying these things – he’s actually doing them.

Video of the Day: Joe Biden Promises No More Drilling for Oil – Period

Joe Biden Just Promised No Coal Power Plants Will Ever Be Built In America

No empty economic suicide pledges from Biden.  Like, say, from China, Russia and India.

China Is Investing in Its Domestic Oil and Gas Industry

Russian Oil Production Is Rebounding and Will Keep Rising

India Continues to Buy More Oil from Russia Despite the Western Pressure

India Looks To Buy More Iranian Oil

China Tells Mines to Produce ’As Much Coal as Possible’

China Needs Russian Coal. Moscow Needs New Customers

In Russia, Coal Is Still King. And The Government Wants Even More

India Ramps Up Coal Production

So as but a tiny salve to our under-climate-siege economy?  Let’s tax the imports from these climate liars.

Trump Trade Principles to Mitigate the Climate Alarmists and Their Many Taxes:

“We have been artificially, dramatically increasing the cost of our energy – while no other country really has.

“Which is a de facto subsidy.  By every other country – for every product, they export to us.

“Because everything they do – is cheaper than everything we do.  Everything they make – is cheaper than everything we make.

“How should we rectify this idiocy?  How do we get to global ‘climate change’ even?

The ‘Border Adjustment Tax’: Great Tax Reform – That Gets Us Great Trade Reform

Border Carbon Tax: DC Can Do Better – When It Chooses to Do So

Build Back Never: Let’s Carbon Tax Them – Not US:

“‘What Is a Carbon Border Tax and What Does It Mean for Trade?:

“‘A carbon border adjustment tax is a duty on imports based on the amount of carbon emissions resulting from the production of the product in question. As a price on carbon, it discourages emissions. As a trade-related measure, it affects production and exports.’

“The US imposing a carbon tax on US – will export lots and LOTS of companies and jobs.  Taxing them and not US – will do exactly the opposite:

“‘Instead of taxing exports and not imports, we’d be taxing imports and not exports. Instead of reading about corporate inversions and outsourcing, we’d be reading about jobs and firms moving into the U.S. to take advantage of the favorable tax rules here.’”

Yes, please.

At the very least, it would help to mitigate the egregious “climate change” damage Biden is unilaterally doing to the US.

*****

This article was published by The Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Oil Companies Unload On Biden After His Thinly-Veiled Threats thumbnail

Oil Companies Unload On Biden After His Thinly-Veiled Threats

By Thomas Catenacci

Oil companies responded in force after President Joe Biden threatened executive action over U.S. refinery capacity declines.

“Following on your campaign promise to ‘end fossil fuel,’ consider just some of the policy and investment signals being sent by various federal agencies and allied state governments to the market about our refining industry,” the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers wrote to Biden on Wednesday.

“What we have seen since January 2021 are policies that send a message that the Administration aims to impose obstacles to our industry delivering energy resources the world needs,” Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne said.

Oil companies and industry trade groups criticized President Joe Biden after he sent a letter to them threatening action over high gasoline prices.

Biden penned a letter to seven major oil companies Tuesday insisting they increase oil refining operations to counter declining fuel supplies and inventories nationwide. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) sent a letter to the White House Wednesday evening, saying energy companies are refining at an increasingly high rate and government policies have injected uncertainty into the industry, in a response sent to the White House on Wednesday evening.

“Refiners do not make multi-billion-dollar investments based on short-term returns,” the two groups wrote in the joint letter to Biden. “They look at long-term supply and demand fundamentals and make investments as appropriate. To that end, following on your campaign promise to ‘end fossil fuel,’ consider just some of the policy and investment signals being sent by various federal agencies and allied state governments to the market about our refining industry.”

“The timing and reasons for shutdowns of several refineries, including the Philadelphia Energy Solutions and Shell Convent refineries, were primarily due to lack of buyers willing to continue operating the facilities as petroleum refineries given growing rhetoric about the long-term viability of the industry,” the letter continued.

On Wednesday, several of the companies Biden addressed in his warning letter responded in force, echoing the industry groups’ response. They noted their refinery utilization rates are high and that the president’s policies are holding them back.

“Specific to refining capacity in the U.S., we’ve been investing through the downturn to increase refining capacity to process U.S. light crude by about 250,000 barrels per day – the equivalent of adding a new medium-sized refinery,” ExxonMobil said in a statement shared with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We kept investing even during the pandemic when we lost more than $20 billion and had to borrow more than $30 billion to maintain investment to increase capacity to be ready for post-pandemic demand.”

“Longer term, the government can promote investment through clear and consistent policy that supports U.S. resource development, such as regular and predictable lease sales, as well as streamlined regulatory approval and support for infrastructure such as pipelines,” the company’s statement continued.

The API and AFPM noted that the Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized a vehicle standard to force gasoline demand down over the next decade and the administration encouraged an effort in California to place a future ban on traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Multiple federal agencies have also introduced roadblocks for approving and constructing energy infrastructure projects like pipelines, the groups added.

Increasing refining capacity would boost crude oil demand and, therefore, prices would soar higher since the administration has largely opposed new fossil fuel production and leasing, the groups said.

In addition, Shell spokesperson Curtis Smith and Phillips 66 spokesperson Bernardo Fallas both highlighted that U.S. refinery utilization is up, in emails to TheDCNF.

Operable refinery utilization — a figure that measures how much petroleum companies are refining relative to their maximum capacity — reached a whopping 94.2% this month, its highest level since 2019, and is expected to remain at that rate through the summer, according to the Energy Information Administration. But total U.S. refining capacity has declined due to environmental regulations and projected gasoline demand decline as a result of the so-called green transition.

“Chevron is committed to the supply of affordable, reliable, ever-cleaner energy in the United States and across the globe,” Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne told TheDCNF. “We understand the significant concerns around higher fuel prices currently faced by consumers around the country and the world. We share these concerns, and expect the Administration’s approach to energy policy will start to better reflect the importance of addressing them.”

“Unfortunately, what we have seen since January 2021 are policies that send a message that the Administration aims to impose obstacles to our industry delivering energy resources the world needs,” he added. “All of Chevron’s U.S. refineries are operational and our refinery input grew to 915,000 [barrels per day] on average in the first quarter from 881,000 in the same quarter a year before.”

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reprinted with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Why are gas prices so high? It’s the oil refineries stupid! thumbnail

Why are gas prices so high? It’s the oil refineries stupid!

By Dr. Rich Swier

Today American’s are seeing the highest gasoline prices in their lifetimes at over $5.00 a gallon on average.

QUESTION: Why is this happening?

ANSWER: It’s the oil refineries stupid!

In 1982 there were over 250 operating crude oil refineries in the United States; that number declined to 132 by 2019.

As of January 1, 2021, there were 129 operable petroleum refineries in the United States a decline of 3 since 2019.

According to Zehl & Associates five of America’s ten largest oil refineries are located along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico.

  • #1: Motiva Port Arthur Manufacturing Complex, Texas.
  • #2: Marathon Galveston Bay Refinery, Texas.
  • #3: Marathon Garyville Refinery, Louisiana.
  • #4: ExxonMobil Baytown Complex, Texas.
  • #5: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery, Louisiana.

NOTE: If a major hurricane hits the Texas and Louisiana coastline then these refineries will shut down.

The remaining six of the top ten are:

  • #6: BP Whiting Refinery, Indiana
  • #7: CITGO Lake Charles Refinery, Louisiana
  • #8: ExxonMobil Beaumont Complex, Texas
  • #9: Marathon Los Angeles (Carson) Refinery, California
  • #10: Chevron Pascagoula Refinery, Mississippi

These 10 refining facilities alone can process 2.6 million barrels of crude oil per calendar day. Texas is home to four of the ten largest refineries in the United States, the entire Texas Gulf Coast Region – including Corpus Christi, Port Arthur, and Beaumont – accounts for more than 87% of total production in the state of Texas and more than a quarter of the nation’s total production.

The U.S. Energy Administration (USEA) has a chart showing the Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries. According to the USEA here are the operable barrels per calendar day (BCD) by year:

  • 2016 – 18,317,036 BCD
  • 2017 – 18,617,027 BCD
  • 2018 – 18,598,497 BCD
  • 2019 – 18,802,435 BCD
  • 2020 – 18,976,085 BCD
  • 2021 – 18,127,700 BCD

Note that under President Donald J. Trump the production of barrels per day increased during his term by 658,049 BCD. Also note that since the inauguration of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. the BCD has dropped 848,385 BCD in just the first year.

Less production, higher prices.

The Bottom Line

Biden has blamed everyone and everything but himself for the highest average price of gasoline in our history.

What we can say is that our American refineries are handling significantly lower numbers of barrels per calendar day since Biden entered the White House.

Why? Because America is producing fewer barrels per calendar day of oil.

The Epoch Times’ reporter Jack Phillips on Tuesday, June 14, 2022 wrote:

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said in a recent interview that he does not believe another oil refinery will be built again in the United States, saying that government policies are a key reason why, as average gas prices continue to rise as of Tuesday.

One hundred and twenty-one fewer refineries since 1982, dropping production of barrels of oil per day since Biden took office and no more new oil refineries due to government policies are in fact the “key reasons” why we have the highest gas prices ever in the U.S.

It’s the oil refineries stupid!

We report, you decide who is at fault.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

EDITORS NOTE: Add to this the warning that the American electrical grid will almost certainly die… from natural causes. In a Center for Security Policy article titled For the cost of less than 1% of the Biden infrastructure bill we could protect our electric grid from certain collapse Tommy Waller Director of Infrastructure Security wrote:

Most Americans regard the sun as a positive source of energy for the planet – nurturing plant life and powering solar panels to help provide the electricity we need to sustain modern civilization. And while we know that we must be protected from the harmful UV rays the sun produces, which cause injury such as sunburn and skin cancer, most don’t realize that the sun can produce even more powerful effects, damaging infrastructure both in space and on earth.

Unless America takes action to protect against the hazard of solar weather, it is nearly certain that we will suffer a catastrophic loss of our electric grid sometime in the future. The Center for Security Policy’s Director of Infrastructure Security Tommy Waller recently testified before the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to explain why, and what must be done about it.

Watch the June 2022 Secretary of Energy Advisory Board meeting to understand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House shifts from blaming Putin to oil companies for high gas prices, calls on them to ‘be patriots’

Oil Companies Unload On Biden After His Thinly-Veiled Threats

Less than 1% of the Biden infrastructure bill could protect our electric grid from certain collapse

Chevron CEO: There May Never Be Another Oil Refinery Built in U.S. Again thumbnail

Chevron CEO: There May Never Be Another Oil Refinery Built in U.S. Again

By The Geller Report

The Democrats are systematically destroying this nation with unimaginable speed.

Oil, in some form, is in almost every product that is made. The government is out of control – run by traitors and scoundrels.

One commenter queried, “Do you think that it is a coincidence that we Americans are being conditioned for accepting food, gas, electricity baby formula and water shortages while restricting public gatherings and worship services? And government moving to confiscate your guns?”

Chevron CEO: There May Never Be Another Oil Refinery Built in US Again

By Jack Phillips, The Epoch Times, June 14, 2022:

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said in a recent interview that he does not believe another oil refinery will be built again in the United States, saying that government policies are a key reason why, as average gas prices continue to rise as of Tuesday.

“There hasn’t been a refinery built in this country since the 1970s,” Wirth said during Bernstein’s Strategic Decisions Conference on June 1 when asked about more refining being added in the Gulf of Mexico. “I personally don’t believe there will be a new petroleum refinery ever built in this country again.”

Wirth added: “Capacity is added by de-bottlenecking existing units by investing in existing refineries … but what we’ve seen over the last two years are shutdowns. We’ve seen refineries closed. We’ve seen units come down. We’ve seen refineries being repurposed to become bio refineries. And we live in a world where the policy, the stated policy of the U.S. government is to reduce demand for the products that refiners produce.”

Continuing further, Wirth said that the federal government’s current policy is to reduce the demand for oil, making it “very hard” in a company “where investments have a payout period of a decade or more.”

Wirth also asked rhetorically, “How do you go to your board, how do you go to your shareholders and say ‘we’re going to spend billions of dollars on new capacity in a market that is, the policy is taking you the other direction.’”

Read the rest……

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Gas Plant That Exploded and Caught on Fire Won’t Be Online for Months: Firm

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Expand Your Business If the Government Will Soon Close It Down? thumbnail

Why Expand Your Business If the Government Will Soon Close It Down?

By Neland Nobel

Progressives seem to be confused about inflation. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit at a rate faster than the rise in the production of goods and services. It is monetary on the one hand and a supply issue on the other.

Therefore, the solution lies in restricting money growth to a level approximate to that of economic growth and allowing natural market forces to increase supply. Wherever there are legal bottlenecks to production and distribution, such as taxes, laws that serve as barriers to entry for competitors, import restrictions, and above all senseless regulations; government can play an active role in getting out of the way of production.

It is said the answer to high prices, is high prices. That is true if the government gets out of the way. High prices cause consumers to restrict demand while higher profits in the affected sectors attract capital and create more supply.

At the centerpiece of the worst inflation in 40 years, is the cost of oil and natural gas.

Insofar as the supply issues are concerned, Progressives and their sock puppet President Biden seems to understand that the drop in global supply has something to do with the increase in prices. But when asked if we can do anything to increase supply, they stare off into space as if the power supply to their brain has been generated by a windmill, and the wind just quit blowing.  The only increase in supply they can conceive of is if the extra supply comes from Iran or Venezuela as opposed to West Texas.

Just this week, Secretary of Treasury Yellen turned her attention away from abortion and gun control long enough to state that the Administration has done all it can do about rising oil prices.

Really?

What if Progressives allowed all that gas in the Marcellus shale, which can be pumped in Pennsylvania but is forbidden in New York, was allowed to be developed?  What if the great oil production that once came from California was permitted to grow?  What if the reserves in Alaska could be tapped? What about all the opportunities offshore and on Federal land?

In short, America has plenty of both existing and new oil and gas geography to be developed, but environmental fanatics will not permit it to be developed. For years, their strategy has been to remove available land with energy resources off the market and elsewhere harass development with endless regulations and lawsuits.

And now, the government explicitly has set goals to phase out oil and gas usage by 2030.

Meanwhile, the ESG movement does everything it can to make energy companies a pariah and starve them of capital. If you don’t have money, you can’t expand.

Put yourselves in the shoes of an oil or gas company executive. Prices are rising, profits are good, but the government intends to put you out of business in about 8 years. Why would you make substantial investments in projects that have a usable life of 30 to 50 years, knowing full well your business will be shutting down in just a few more years? 

A more rational response is to recover what you can under the circumstances. Use your profits to buy back stock, benefiting management and your loyal shareholders that have stayed with you through this constant attack from the government and distributing dividends to your shareholders as well. But these strategies while rational, do not produce an ounce of new energy.

You wouldn’t and that is why in the present situation rising prices will not do their magic, that is, call forward new production to alleviate the shortages.

This crisis in the short term has been aggravated by Putin. But the guilty parties are homegrown, the environmental movement and their allies in the Democrat party.

This energy crisis is wholly artificial, designed to drive the economy away from inexpensive oil and gas and towards the new Green nirvana of solar and wind. They want fossil fuels to be expensive so that their forced alternatives look better. They don’t want a level playing field where one energy source competes against the other. They want to cram their ideas down our throats because of the hubris of their movement. They think among all the variables that cause the climate to change over time, they alone can change the climate of the earth over the next 100 years.

If you can’t afford to drive to work or feed your family, you are just collateral damage necessary to achieve their greater goal.

What is even more insane is that they seem pleased if the oil and gas are produced elsewhere, as if the earth’s atmosphere can tell the difference between Alaskan oil and Venezuelan.

This push from the top down to change our energy system is aggravating the inflationary problems touched off by wild deficit-financed spending and a Federal Reserve Board that has gone out of its way to remove any restraint on the legislative and executive branches of government. Combined with the environmental movement, that has locked us into devastating inflation that will be hard to escape.

Unfortunately, market forces will not be unleashed to help alleviate the problem. There simply is no incentive under the circumstances to make new long-term investments in the sector.

Why invest in more hydrocarbon production if they are simply going to put you out of business?

Only one other solution exists. We must vote out of office those who grovel to the environmental movement and encourage all forms of energy development. If we don’t, our standard of living, and national security, will be in grave jeopardy. Then we need a program of fiscal responsibility and monetary restraint coupled with massive deregulation of American business.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less thumbnail

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Today’s pervasive claims of imminent climate catastrophe and imminent renewable energy dominance, Epstein shows, are based on what he calls the “anti-impact framework”—a set of faulty methods, false assumptions, and anti-human values that have caused the media’s designated experts to make wildly wrong predictions about fossil fuels, climate, and renewables for the last 50 years.

Deeply researched and wide-ranging, this book Fossil Future will cause you to rethink everything you thought you knew about the future of our energy use, our environment, and our climate.


CLICK BELOW TO ORDER

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less


New York Times best-selling author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels draws on the latest data and new insights to challenge everything you thought you knew about the future of energy.

For over a decade, philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein has predicted that any negative impacts of fossil fuel use on our climate will be outweighed by the unique benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing—including their unrivaled ability to provide low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

And contrary to what we hear from media “experts” about today’s “renewable revolution” and “climate emergency”, reality has proven Epstein right:

  • Fact: Fossil fuels are still the dominant source of energy around the world, and growing fast—while much-hyped renewables are causing skyrocketing electricity prices and increased blackouts.
  • Fact: Fossil-fueled development has brought global poverty to an all-time low.
  • Fact: While fossil fuels have contributed to the one degree of warming in the last 170 years, climate-related deaths are at all-time lows, thanks to fossil-fueled development.

What does the future hold? In Fossil Future, Epstein, applying his distinctive “human flourishing framework” to the latest evidence, comes to the shocking conclusion that the benefits of fossil fuels will continue to far outweigh their side effects—including climate impacts—for generations to come. The path to global human flourishing, Epstein argues, is a combination of using more fossil fuels, getting better at “climate mastery”, and establishing “energy freedom” policies that allow nuclear and other truly promising alternatives to reach their full long-term potential.

Today’s pervasive claims of imminent climate catastrophe and imminent renewable energy dominance, Epstein shows, are based on what he calls the “anti-impact framework”—a set of faulty methods, false assumptions, and anti-human values that have caused the media’s designated experts to make wildly wrong predictions about fossil fuels, climate, and renewables for the last 50 years. Deeply researched and wide-ranging, this book will cause you to rethink everything you thought you knew about the future of our energy use, our environment, and our climate.

©CFACT. All rights reserved.

Is It Ethical to Purchase a Lithium Battery Powered EV? thumbnail

Is It Ethical to Purchase a Lithium Battery Powered EV?

By Ronald Stein

With numerous state governors have issued executive orders to phase out the purchasing of gasoline-driven cars within the next decade or so, and the automobile manufacturers’ efforts to phase into only manufacturing EVs here’s some food for thought about the lack of transparency about “Clean Energy Exploitations”.

The top image is an oil well, where 100 percent organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then it flows in pipelines safely transporting the oil to refineries to be manufactured into usable oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products for society, and into transportation fuels needed by the world’s heavy-weight and long-range infrastructures of aviation, merchant ships, cruise ships, and militaries.

The lower image is just one lithium supply mine where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consists of thirty-five to forty humongous 797 Caterpillar haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So, with an inventory of just thirty-five, the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.

There is virtually non-existing transparency of the environmental degradation and the human rights abuses occurring in developing countries with yellow, brown, and black-skinned people. Both human rights abuses and environmental degradation are directly connected to the mining of the exotic minerals and metals that are required to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries.

Today, a typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery.

The current fossil fuel infrastructure is less invasive than mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to create the batteries needed to store “green energy”. In developing countries, these mining operations exploit child labor and are responsible for the most egregious human rights’ violations of vulnerable minority populations. These operations are also directly destroying the planet through environmental degradation. The 2022 Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy“, does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency to the world of the green movement’s impact upon humanity.

How many environmentalists are going to support lithium mines in America? There are two things needed to make the EV technology work for the billions of lightweight cars:

Get the mining practices for these exotic minerals and metals to the point that they are acceptable to the environmental movement and stop the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries where people are being exploited with yellow, brown, and black skin.

Further development of battery technology to somewhat clone how phones have been reduced in “size” with smaller and smaller batteries and increased capabilities in those small phones and reduce the alarming tendency of lithium batteries and their charging sources from spontaneously catching fire without warning.

If You’re Worried About Rising Gas Prices, watch this 11- minute video about why NOT buy an EV. Since you’ve probably read about EV fires, here’s a site that keeps tabs just on TESLA EV fires https://www.tesla-fire.com/, now at 85 and growing almost daily.

So, the next time you are thinking about purchasing an electric vehicle, or driving your EV car, before congratulating yourselves on saving the environment, remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains in developing countries, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel.

We should all know that an electric vehicle battery does not “make” electricity – it only stores electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, and occasionally by intermittent breezes and sunshine. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid as 80 percent of the electricity generated to charge the batteries is from coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Since twenty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S is from coal-fired plants, it follows that twenty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered.

Since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S is from natural gas, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are natural gas-powered.

Since twenty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S is from nuclear, it follows that twenty percent of the EVs on the road are nuclear-powered.

Life Without Oil is NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY THINK as renewable energy is only intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine as NEITHER wind turbines nor solar panels can manufacture anything for society. Climate change may impact humanity but being mandated to live without the products manufactured from oil will necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800s and could be the greatest threat to civilization’s eight billion residents.

America’s obsession with green electricity to reduce emissions must be ethical and should not thrive off human rights and environmental abuses in the foreign countries providing the exotic minerals and metals to support America’s green passion. Check out the quick 7-minute video interview between Ronald Stein and Rick Amato on “Your America TV” about The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) movement to divest in fossil fuels, that may be leading society back to the decarbonized world of the 1800s and before.

So, before your next vehicle purchase, be knowledgeable that most of the exotic minerals and metals to build EV batteries are being mined in developing countries.

EV buyers should be aware that they may be contributing to the pursuit of “blood minerals” to achieve their efforts to go green. If you feel comfortable supporting the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in those developing countries, then proceed with your purchase.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On the Road Again thumbnail

On the Road Again

By Bruce Bialosky

As we approached the start of our annual trip to foreign lands, we were excited that the mask mandate for airplane flights was ending the day before our departure. We did not believe the Biden Administration would be foolish enough to extend it; then they did. We were thoroughly dejected. Then we met Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. And we were exultant.

There were two reasons we were so happy. People being required to wear masks on airplanes is the ultimate act of bureaucratic overreach. Airplanes are the safest place you can be with the best and cleanest recirculated air you can experience. Victory for common sense and science. The second reason we were happy is that it set the Left into a tizzy of gargantuan proportions. They attacked Judge Mizelle, but in the multiple commentaries I read on the issue never once did they comment on the legality of her ruling. Only ad hominin attacks.

“If CDC can’t impose an unintrusive requirement to wear a mask to prevent a virus from going state to state, then it literally has no power to do anything,” said public health law expert Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. And that was in PBS online, which we pay for. It may be unintrusive to you buddy, but it is not to us. Maybe this guy has not been on a plane for a while, but most people are wearing useless cloth masks anyway so why do they have them on in the first place? Lastly, the CDC does not make laws; they administer laws passed by Congress. Since not one person I have read has said the ruling did not fit the law I am wondering what the problem is.

Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect, a far-Left publication, wrote “I will be flying from Boston to D.C. next week. It is my first air travel in more than two years, and many of the yahoo passengers will be unmasked. I will be wearing a mask, maybe two masks.” He is supposedly part of the intelligentsia.

The worst part is that Biden said he would defer to “the scientists” to make the decision regarding a possible appeal. On its face, this is a reason to throw this guy out of office. We did not elect scientists; we elected you. They consult, and you decide. He still does not get he is President except when he wants to give our money away without clear constitutional authority.

At any rate, we had a delightful, maskless ten-hour flight. Sadly, most of the passengers are still listening to the fearmongering from the Left and wore masks.

After a short layover in London, we headed toward Iceland. There is a lot of talk about Iceland these days. It has really made strides since it entered the world stage in 1986 when it hosted the Reagan – Gorbachev summit in the capital, Reykjavik. This country is now a major draw for tourism and with good reason, after having supported itself on fishing for many years. Just a reminder, it only became a republic eleven days after D-Day.

The Beautiful Wife through her travel blog and travel consulting business has developed many contacts over the years. We still traveled just the two of us, but she consulted with a gentleman who has been to Iceland 25 times and has a business planning travel to Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands (our next destination). We had detailed plans of what to see for our four days in Iceland.

Iceland is a fascinating country of 345,000 people which is the tenth lowest population density in the world. It is 93%, Icelandic natives. It has its own language and currency. Neither of those makes much sense in an ever-shrinking world with four times as many tourists annually as there are residents. It is a thoroughly modern society built on a prehistoric landscape.

When you start driving here (you must drive or bus to tour the area) you see the country is a giant wetland. If this place were the United States, the EPA would make an argument they should control every inch of land. As a Californian, one must adjust as you have no fear of wasting water or energy here. Water is everywhere. This is the only country in the world that is on 100% of renewable energy. It is all geothermal and hydropower. Gavin should take a family vacation here and find out how to replace our current energy sources without medieval windmills. Since they did so much Game of Thrones filming here the windmills would probably make sense.

The country is staggeringly beautiful in a unique way. Driving along the main southern route (1) you do not go far until you see a waterfall, then another and another and another. Some smaller, some larger but they are all over the place. There was one outside our bedroom window at one of our hotels. At least for the southern coast, it is all built on volcanic rock, ice, and sand.

We previously traveled to Southern Africa to see the famous Victoria Falls. Though we did not see a waterfall that size, there were so many beautiful ones here in Iceland. We have been on beaches all over the world where people speak of the whitest sand. Here they have beaches that stretch for miles that are totally black sand.

We had a guide who showed up in our hotel even though his tour was canceled (we had opted to go it alone). It was very fortuitous he was there because he took us to the edge of a volcano that is 14 years past its regular eruption period. When that happens, it will rock the Northern hemisphere. His name is Thor (no joke) and he told us his family heritage was traced back to the Vikings (common here) who settled Iceland about 1,000 years ago. The first Vikings settled here in 870 AD. As the son of a lifetime guide, this gentleman (who was in his late fifties) was a fountain of information.

When we were walking, we told him we had a similar experience last year hiking to see the Silverback gorillas in Uganda. What a contrast. Here they put what appears to be tire chains on your boots (“crampons”) to make sure you do not slip on the ice. The ice is largely black from volcanic activity, but we were still on a glacier.

After getting friendly with him we asked whether he led tours in other languages, and he said yes. We then asked him who were his favorite people to tour. He immediately blurted out – Americans. He said they are the friendliest, happiest people. He told us he goes to a local bar, and he can tell when there are Americans there because the sound of chatter and laughter radiates. He sometimes tours people from other countries, and they spend the entire tour not saying anything or engaging him. Just another reminder we are loved worldwide, and we are blessed to be Americans.

When we were returning to our hotel, he reminded us that Iceland has the best tap water in the world. He grabbed the Beautiful Wife’s water bottle, which was half-empty, stopped the vehicle in the middle of the stream and jumped out, and filled the bottle. It was cold and delicious. There are few places where one will have that experience, not to mention done by a Viking descendent.

Iceland is a special place of unique beauty and picturesque experiences. Bring a warm coat. Don’t look for any shade – there are no trees.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Biden in 2020 Unequivocally Stated He Planned to ‘End’ the Fossil Fuel Industry! He’s wrong to do so! thumbnail

Biden in 2020 Unequivocally Stated He Planned to ‘End’ the Fossil Fuel Industry! He’s wrong to do so!

By Dr. Rich Swier

Watch this segment of the Democrat debate for POTUS and candidate Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.’s statement on fossil fuels.

Joe Biden in 2020: “No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. No more drilling including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill period. It ends.” pic.twitter.com/90MVJevPmv

— Dan O’Donnell (@DanODonnellShow) March 8, 2022

in an article titled “Fossil Fuels and Fossilized Thinking” wrote,

Eighty-one years ago, in 1940, a popular science magazine published a short article by Benjamin Lee Worf that initiated one of the trendiest intellectual fads of the 20th century.

[ … ]

In the light of this principle, it is interesting to consider the customary use in contemporary discourse of the modifier fossil to describe hydrocarbon-based energy, as instantiated in these phrases gleaned from the international Greenpeace websitefossil fuels, fossil energy, fossil gas, fossil capital, fossil-free politics, fossil-free economy, fossil-free revolution.

[ … ]

Symbolically, the expression fossil fuels associates hydrocarbon energy with a number of underlying notions that present it in a highly unfavourable light. Not only are fossils dug out of the ground, which links them to dirt and mud (viz. the expression dirty energy), but they are also artefacts from a very remote past, which connotes the idea that hydrocarbons are utterly outdated and should be extinct like the species whose skeletons we display in museum exhibits.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has made it his mission to demonize fossil fuels and has now implemented what he promised in 2020.

The result of his policies against fossil fuels is quite apparent at your local gas stations.

QUESTIONS: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.’s goal is replace fossil fuels with what exactly? Wind and solar? Will this help or hurt the planet?

However, our use of fossil fuels, which produce CO2 has been good for the planet. And indeed, the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the industrial era are making the earth greener and increasing crop yields: in its forecast of world cereal grain production for 2020/2021, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization foresees a 4.4 percent increase, up 2.6 percent from the record set in 2019/2020.

In 2016 a paper titled “The greening of the Earth and its drivers” was published in the journal Nature Climate Change by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a 14 percent increase in green vegetation over the previous 30 years, attributing 70 percent of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author of the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this was equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.

You seen CO2 is plant food. The more CO2 the greener the planet.

The Bottom Line

On Thursday, June 9th 2022 the national average price for gas passed $5 a gallon, shattering previous record prices according to fuel savings company Gasbuddy.

In this video Alex Epstein explains that despite climate change, why the future needs more, not less, fossil fuels.

Today, America needs more fossil fuels to keep warm, get to work, heat their food, keep the supply chain running, keep jet aircraft flying, provide power to hospitals, restaurants, factories and homes. Fossil fuels are the drivers of our economy. Take away fossil fuels and you destroy our power, people and planet.

As Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Biden’s policies are doing great harm and he doesn’t seem to care about we the people.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

I rented an electric car for a 4-day road trip. I spent more time charging it than I did sleeping.

Backup battery cost fantasies abound

Backup Battery Cost Fantasies Abound thumbnail

Backup Battery Cost Fantasies Abound

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

The only technologically feasible way to make renewables reliable at in the foreseeable future is with massive amounts of grid scale batteries. Whether this is even remotely feasible depends on the cost and here things get truly strange.

On the one hand we have real utility reports of the capital cost of these big battery arrays. Battery systems that have actually been built. On the other hand we have projected capital costs, which are being used to defend the growth of unreliable renewables.

The real costs and the projected costs are wildly different. So different that the projected costs have the aspect of fantasy.

Let’s start with the reality. The EIA collected annual utility data on the cost of grid scale battery arrays. Their most recent report is “Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends — August 2021”.

From 2013 to 2018 the average reported cost was around $1,500,000 per MWh. The range was pretty large, from under $500,000 to around $3,000,000 per MWh.

It is worth noting that in 2020 EIA excitedly reported a big drop in cost. This was from an average of $2,100,000 in 2015 way down to a low of $600,000 in 2019. I am rather skeptical that this 70% cost drop was real. There was no technological breakthrough to cause it. I suspect it was either a case of price cutting or of utilities manipulating their cost reports. Tesla has been bidding very low, at around $500,000 for some time. These are likely loss leader bids.

It is certainly the case that the cost must be going way up these days, not down, given the huge price spike in lithium and other essential constituent materials, as well as in the energy needed for making these monster battery arrays.

So it seems fair to say that the cost is at least $600,000 a MWh, quite possibly a lot more. A million dollars a MWh is not an unreasonable estimate. Keep in mind that a MWh is what an average American home uses in just a month, so it is not a lot of juice storage for a lot of money.

Now comes the fantasy. There are several recent mainstream estimates of the future capital cost of grid scale battery arrays. These estimates are often used in assessments of the economic feasibility of a transition from coal and gas fired generation to wind and solar. The battery cost estimates are crucial because it will take an enormous amount of batteries to try to make intermittent wind and solar reliable.

For example, DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory has published battery cost projections through 2050 in their report “Cost Projections for Utility Scale Battery Storage: 2021 Update”. NREL is gung ho on renewables, so also on the batteries needed to try to make wind and solar reliable.

Each NREL projection is for a narrow range of costs. The low end of that range is a mere $143,000 per MWh in 2030 and $87,000 in 2050. That is right, just $87,000 for something that today costs $600,000 to $1,000,000, with costs going up.

Clearly this protection is extremely rosy, to the point of fantasy.

In a recent report — “The Future of Energy Storage” — MIT goes even lower. Their 2050 battery cost estimate is a tiny $70,000 per MWh! For something that costs upwards of a million dollars today. Surely this is pure fantasy.

Mind you given the Biden goal of zero electric power emissions by 2035, the 2050 fantasy figure may be irrelevant. But even NREL’s 2030 estimate of $143,000 is unbelievable. Given the way prices are rising, $1,000,000 is a better bet. Plus Biden’s goal is itself pure fantasy.

In short, energy policy needs to be based on sound engineering estimates, not wishful fantasies.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/. Available for confidential research and consulting.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What are ESG Scores? thumbnail

What are ESG Scores?

By Neland Nobel

And why are so many advocates of liberty deeply concerned about them?

Klaus Schwab and a growing list of powerful global economic and political elites, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and President Joe Biden, have recently committed to a global “reset” of the prevailing school of economic thought. They seek to supplant the entrenched “shareholder doctrine” of capitalism, which—as Milton Friedman famously espoused over 50 years ago—holds that the only purpose of a corporate executive is to maximize profits on behalf of company shareholders.

To replace shareholder capitalism, Schwab, Fink, Biden, and a legion of their peers have promulgated a nouveau “stakeholder doctrine,” commonly referred to as “stakeholder capitalism.” This approach, which aims to harness the growing clamor for more socially conscious corporate decision-making, authorizes, incentivizes, and even coerces corporate executives and directors to work on behalf of social objectives deemed by elites to be desirable for all corporate stakeholders—including communities, workers, executives, and suppliers.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores—a social credit framework for sustainability reporting—are being used as the primary mechanism to achieve the shift to a stakeholder model. They measure both financial and non-financial impacts of investments and companies and serve to formally institutionalize corporate social responsibility in global economic infrastructure.

Environment, social, and governance scores are theoretically supposed to incentivize “responsible investing” by “screening out” companies that do not possess high ESG scores while favorably rating those companies and funds that make positive contributions to ESG’s three overarching categories. A company’s ESG score has become a primary component of its risk profile.

Who Are the agents responsible for this shift, and what have they done to bring it about?

Although there have been many ESG frameworks developed over the past decade, in the past three years alone, three major documents and compacts have been signed by a coalition of corporate governors, political elites, central bank directors, international organization representatives, and other powerful individuals. Together, they have had a substantial impact on the global economy and the shift to ESG.

In August 2019, The Business Roundtable (TBR)—comprised of 181 of the most powerful corporate executives in the United States—officially revised its conception of a corporation’s purpose to “promote an economy that serves all Americans.” The companies these CEOs represent hail from nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy, including major financial institutions, media conglomerates, technology firms, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and myriad others.

Many of these executives are likely unaware that their  ESG ideas come dangerously close to the social credit system run by the Chinese Communist Party. It applies to corporations instead of individuals, but the principles are the same. Nor do they likely recognize that their policies result in starving the fossil fuel industry of capital, thus contributing to soaring energy costs to consumers and rampant inflation. Besides Biden, think of these leaders when you fill up your tank!

For businessmen to betray the principles of private ownership of capital, and free enterprise, and buy into the agenda of a particular political party, marks quite a change in the role of business in society. Heretofore, with the exception of tax-free foundations funded by businesses (think of the Ford Foundation), corporations rarely have been so politically active outside of election activities. This is causing evolutionary tension with our political parties. The Democrat party increasingly has become the party of Big Money and Big corporations, while the Republican party is increasingly less friendly to Big Business and sides more with small business people and consumers.

A case in point is the state of Florida. Previously quite friendly to Walt Disney, state leaders took affront when that giant corporation that had received special favors from the state, decided it would take it upon itself to interfere directly and publicly with legislation that would restrict the teaching of transgender ideology to those in kindergarten through the third grade. The result was the loss to Walt Disney of the Reedy Improvement district, which gave that corporation almost the power of self-government.

You will note in the map provided, that Arizona has down well on this front, largely due to Republicans in the legislature.

If the upcoming elections go badly for Democrats and the Green New Deal, Republicans need to keep in mind that Big Business has not been their friend. The result should be a reexamination of the relations of business to government. Special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks, all need to be eliminated. Republicans should strive to eliminate regulations and barriers that reduce competition.  It is bad enough to have socialism constantly foisted upon us by Democrats. It is quite another to expect that from Big Business. Republicans will have to deal with “Business Roundtable” types within our own ranks.

Vote with your dollars as well and try to avoid doing business with corporations that betray your trust and the economic system that made this country great. More than half the country identifies as conservative so make these companies pay whenever you can. True, it takes some work to find substitutes, but where you can, hit them in the pocketbook. But it is easy in some cases to avoid buying shoes for example from Nike, buying anything from Disney, buying a car from GM, and turning off the NBA is quite easy. Some choices, like the NBA, are not even “necessities” in the normal course of life and can easily be dismissed. Find money managers other than BlackRock, and move your checking account away from Chase and other large banks, to smaller independent banks. It can be difficult finding substitutes on occasion but where you can, avoid doing business and avoid buying the stocks of companies in the Business Roundtable, or at least directors of the Roundtable.You can actually make spending your money a political “lifestyle” choice.  It is fun and you will feel good about doing so.

Corporate leaders will soon get the message.  If you go woke, you will go broke.  Other than the transgender craze, nothing has been more woke than ESG.

*****

This article is adapted from materials published by The Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.  However, the opinions are that of the author.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Arizona to Spend $76.5 million in EV Charging Stations on Highways thumbnail

Arizona to Spend $76.5 million in EV Charging Stations on Highways

By Tom Joyce

Editors’ Note: The following article amply shows the power of Federal subsidies to bend even a conservative state like Arizona to do the bidding of the Federal Government. It is up to private companies to provide the infrastructure to produce and distribute fuel for gasoline-powered cars, but Federal dollars and Arizona state agencies will provide for “free” the infrastructure to power electric vehicles. Why is that? If it is such a wonderful technology and there are so many people desperate to buy electric cars, would not a smart businessman figure out a way to make a profit serving that market? Why is it necessary to confiscate tax dollars from the vast majority of owners of gasoline-powered cars to subsidize the preferences of those who want electric cars? You know the answer: the Democrat’s Green New Deal. But why does Arizona want to go along with that? Because the money is there and what agency does not want to spend it. Who can resist “free money” and the ability to expand bureaucratic turf in the process (remember Obamacare Medicaid expansion)? We are not even talking about the science which shows electric cars when viewed in the entire chain of production and fueling, are no cleaner or better for the environment than gasoline cars. We are talking about the power of one political party to force its will on the rest of us, and the states, by using our money to bribe ourselves. It is destructive to federalism and an affront to science. And it is just another example of the government substituting its judgment for the voluntary decisions made by those in the free marketplace. It is top-down, command and control decision making, rather than letting market forces determine the most efficient transportation methods through trial and error, and the best technology for people to use for transportation. You can bet that since government agencies don’t have to make a profit or loss, or be accountable to shareholders, the electric car infrastructure will not be as efficient as that built and maintained by private industry. Obviously, the decision is not “free” as it arbitrarily makes capital investments using government money, which is our money, not theirs. Who will pay for all the increased electricity use and the expansion of that capacity? These are questions not likely to be asked because the attractiveness of  Federal subsidies with money confiscated or printed out of thin air cannot be resisted. Even, it would seem, in Arizona.

The state is set to receive $76.5 million in federal dollars through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program over the next five years. This will allow the department to establish publicly accessible EV charging stations along Arizona’s federal interstate highways. 

“The first step of the plan will focus on deploying EV fast chargers along Arizona’s currently designated alternative fuel corridors – the interstate system – to reduce range anxiety and encourage vehicle purchasers to consider EVs as a viable alternative to gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles,” ADOT said in its release.

The state may put EV charging stations on non-federal highways in the coming years, if the funding becomes available, according to a press release from the Arizona Department of Transportation.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Arizona has 924 EV charging stations. As of June 2021, DOE said Arizona had 28,770 registered EVs.

ADOT says that it hired AECOM Consultants to get input from the public and industry leaders about this topic – like the electric vehicle industry and utility companies.

ADOT says that it will seek comments and suggestions on its plan starting in August. This will include, among other things, surveys as well as online and in-person public meetings.

More information on ADOT’s plan is available at azdot.gov/EVplan.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Germany’s Green Energy Fixation Should Teach U.S. a Lesson thumbnail

Germany’s Green Energy Fixation Should Teach U.S. a Lesson

By Larry Bell

Germany’s new Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government vice chancellor and economic minister Robert Habeck, a leading member of his country’s Green Party, has experienced a rude lesson regarding the disastrous consequences of his years of naïve opposition to fossil fuels.

After tasking his top officials to assess the energy security implications of Germany’s dependence on Russian supplies in the event of a then-looming Ukraine invasion, their conclusions were desperately dispiriting.

Habeck reportedly told an interviewer: “I thought to myself ‘the situation we are in is a catastrophe. I can’t possibly take responsibility for perpetuating this total, terrible helplessness.”

What had Habeck belatedly realized?

A major lesson—and one we might expect would have been obvious very early—is that wind energy which Germany built a lot of is neither reliable nor cheap.

As a matter of fact, Germany—with the highest installed wind power capacity in Europe, also, along with Denmark—has among the highest electricity prices worldwide (around USD 35 cents per kilowatt-hour [cents/kWh] in the second quarter of 2021), ranking 15th as most expensive out of 133 countries.

That ranking doesn’t account for a present surge in German energy prices which are likely to go much higher.

Nevertheless, this was already more than three times what we then paid in America (11.8 cents/kWh), which is projected to increase about 4% this year.

On top of an already high price pain, Germany had a breezily bad wind yield last summer, the weakest in over 20 years, with onshore electricity generation only 87% of that produced in 2020.

This required Berlin to crank up more of Habeck’s Green Party-loathed coal and lignite-fired plants to make up the difference.

What else could they do?

Germany, a dominant EU economic power, relied on Russia for more than half of the natural gas and a third of the oil they burn to power factories, heat homes, and fuel trucks, buses, and cars.

To make matters even worse, roughly half of Germany’s coal imports—which are essential to its steel manufacturing—come from Russia as well.

So it’s not as if Habeck should have any trouble eliminating Russian coal imports. The global supply is plentiful, and Germany itself has vast reserves of it that are easily accessed and transported.

As for natural gas, as recently as 15 years ago, EU member countries produced more gas than Russia exported.

Also paradoxically, although Europe’s gas reserves are smaller than Russia’s, they may have as much technically recoverable shale gas as the US, which their governments won’t allow to be developed.

Regarding oil, Germany has relied on Russian deliveries for about 35% of their supply via dedicated pipelines for decades since their ports have limited capacity to host supertankers from other suppliers. Germany also lacks pipelines for coast-to-coast transport, and the country has allowed most of the containers used to move it by train to be scrapped.

So forget about cheap energy for Germany, especially natural gas which is essential to the country’s economic competitiveness. As projected by The Wall Street Journal, Germany’s gross domestic product could fall by up to 6% if Russian deliveries are stopped.

Meanwhile, Russian giant Gazprom PJSC has acquired Europe’s biggest gas storage facility, and Russian government-controlled oil producer Rosneft has acquired a majority share in one of Europe’s biggest oil refineries—both in Germany.

By the time Putin’s troops invaded Ukraine, Germany was already paying Russia about $208 million for energy daily, curbing their enthusiasm for Western financial sanctions that followed.

All consequential dependence and desperation are entirely self-inflicted, dating back to the Cold War when West Germany supplied the Soviet Union with steel to make pipelines in exchange for cheap natural gas.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 16-year reign accelerated this interdependency, backing the construction of two gas pipelines between Germany and Russia—Nord Stream 1 and 2.

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was ready to come online but Germany mothballed it when Russia attacked Ukraine. Germany provided decisive backing over the past 16 years to develop the pipelines, which together cost around $20 billion.

The first of those pipelines were agreed on shortly before former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was replaced by Merkel in 2005.

Only weeks after leaving office, Schröder, a personal friend of Putin, was awarded a senior Nord Stream position to become an influential lobbyist for gas giants Gazprom and Rosneft, with access to leading politicians, including current Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his senior aides.

By the time Merkel recently stepped down and Scholz stepped in, Germany had come to be the world’s biggest buyer of Russian gas, and one of the EU’s most dependent countries on Russian energy.

Germany’s green-obsessed government has made itself even more reliant on natural gas because of earlier decisions to phase out nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Vice Chancellor Habeck is on a hunt to buy liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from suppliers such as the U.S. and Qatar. The problem is that LNG travels by ship before being re-gasified at special port facilities that Germany doesn’t currently have.

Although new contracts struck with Norway and Gulf states have somewhat helped Habeck reduce Russian supplies, a key Schwedt refinery in eastern Germany, which supplies most of the region’s car, aircraft, and heating fuel, is controlled by Rosneft which has no interest in refining non-Russian oil.

So much to the angst and incriminations of his former Green Party pals, Habeck is seeking to lease a couple of Greece’s giant floating LNG terminal ships, Transpower and Transgas, which are set to come online early next year.

For comparison, Germany needs around 95 billion cubic meters of gas a year, and while Nord Stream has a capacity of 55 billion cubic meters a year, a single floating terminal can add only about 5 billion cubic meters. Most of the rest would have to come from LNG imports supplied by neighboring countries such as the Netherlands.

With no thanks to President Joe Biden’s war on fossil energy which is causing shortages and record prices in America, we can’t do much to help.

Yes…there is a dire lesson in this for us, too.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.

Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

How to Alleviate the Looming Global Hunger Crisis thumbnail

How to Alleviate the Looming Global Hunger Crisis

By Bjorn Lomborg

A global food crisis is looming, so policymakers everywhere need to think hard about how to make food cheaper and more plentiful. That requires making a commitment to producing more fertilizer and better seeds, maximizing the potential offered by genetic modification, and abandoning the rich world’s obsession with organics.

Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine is making less food available because the two nations have been responsible for more than a quarter of global wheat exports and big quantities of barley, corn and vegetable oil. On top of punishing climate policies and the world emerging from the pandemic, prices of fertilizer, energy and transport are soaring, and food prices have climbed 61 percent over the last two years.

The war has exposed some harsh truths. One is that Europe — which portrays itself as a green energy trailblazer — is highly reliant on Russian gas, especially when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. The war has reaffirmed the basic reality that fossil fuels remain crucial for the vast majority of global needs. And the emerging food crisis now reveals another harsh truth: organic farming cannot feed the world and could even worsen future crises.

Long simply a fashionable trend for the world’s 1 percent, environmentalists have increasingly peddled the beguiling idea that organic farming can solve hunger. The European Union is actively pushing for a tripling of organic farming on the continent by 2030, while a majority of Germans actually think organic farming can help feed the world.

However, research conclusively shows that organic farming produces much less food than conventional farming per acre. Moreover, organic farming requires farmers to rotate soil out of production for pasture, fallow or cover crops, reducing its effectiveness. In total, organic approaches produce between a quarter and half less food than conventional, scientific-driven agriculture.

This not only makes organic food more expensive, but it means that organic farmers would need much more land to feed the same number of people as today — possibly almost twice the area. Given that agriculture currently uses 40 percent of Earth’s ice-free land, switching to organics would mean destroying large swathes of nature for less effective production.

The catastrophe unfolding in Sri Lanka provides a sobering lesson. The government last year enforced a full transition to organic farming, appointing organics gurus as agricultural advisers, including some who claimed dubious links between agricultural chemicals and health problems. Despite extravagant claims that organic methods could produce comparable yields to conventional farming, within months the policy produced nothing but misery, with some food prices quintupling.

Sri Lanka had been self-sufficient in rice production for decades, but tragically has now been forced to import $450 million worth of rice. Tea, the nation’s primary export crop and source of foreign exchange, was devastated, with economic losses estimated at $425 million. Before the country spiraled downward toward brutal violence and political resignations, the government was forced to offer $200 million in compensation to farmers and come up with $149 million in subsidies.

Sri Lanka’s organic experiment failed fundamentally because of one simple fact: it does not have enough land to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizer with animal manure. To shift to organics and keep production, it would need five to seven times more manure than its total manure today.

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, mostly made with natural gas, are a modern miracle, crucial for feeding the world. Largely thanks to this fertilizer, agricultural outputs were tripled in the last half-century, as the human population doubled. Artificial fertilizer and modern farming inputs are the reason the number of people working on farms has been slashed in every rich country, freeing people for other productive occupations.

In fact, one dirty secret of organic farming is that, in rich countries, the vast majority of existing organic crops depend on imported nitrogen laundered from animal manure, which ultimately comes from fossil fuel fertilizers used on conventional farms.

Without those inputs, if a country — or the world — were to go entirely organic, nitrogen scarcity quickly becomes disastrous, just as we saw in Sri Lanka. That is why research shows going organic globally can only feed about half the current world population. Organic farming will lead to more expensive, scarcer food for fewer people, while gobbling up more nature.

To sustainably feed the world and withstand future global shocks, we need to produce food better and cheaper. History shows that the best way to achieve that is by improving seeds, including by using genetic modification, along with expanding fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation. This will allow us to produce more food, curb prices, alleviate hunger, and save nature.

*****

This article was published by AIER, American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Thank you to all The Prickly Pear readers who contacted legislators about the egregious formation of the “Disinformation Governance Board” at the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Citizens such as yourselves made the Biden administration and DHS back away from this unprecedented Orwellian and tyrannical step of censorship and suppression of free speech in our Republic. There are critical issues to  ‘TAKE ACTION’ on and The Prickly Pear will serve as a rallying point to stop the left’s assaults on We the People and our liberty. God bless America.

Tips on Pumping Gas that Will Save You $$$! thumbnail

Tips on Pumping Gas that Will Save You $$$!

By Scott Adams

I don’t know what you guys are paying for gasoline…. but here in California we are paying up to $5.75 to $7 per gallon. My line of work is in petroleum for about 31 years now, so here are some tricks to get more of your money’s worth for every gallon:

Here at the Kinder Morgan Pipeline where I work in San Jose , CA we deliver about 4 million gallons in a 24-hour period thru the pipeline. One day is diesel the next day is jet fuel, and gasoline, regular and premium grades. We have 34-storage tanks here with a total capacity of 16,800,000 gallons.

1️⃣ Only buy or fill up your car or truck in the early morning when the ground temperature is still cold. Remember that all service stations have their storage tanks buried below ground. The colder the ground the more dense the gasoline, when it gets warmer gasoline expands, so buying in the afternoon or in the evening….your gallon is not exactly a gallon. In the petroleum business, the specific gravity and the temperature of the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, ethanol and other petroleum products plays an important role.

2️⃣ A 1-degree rise in temperature is a big deal for this business. But the service stations do not have temperature compensation at the pumps.

3️⃣ When you’re filling up do not squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to a fast mode If you look you will see that the trigger has three (3) stages: low, middle, and high. You should be pumping on low mode, thereby minimizing the vapors that are created while you are pumping. All hoses at the pump have a vapor return. If you are pumping on the fast rate, some of the liquid that goes to your tank becomes vapor. Those vapors are being sucked up and back into the underground storage tank so you’re getting less worth for your money.

4️⃣ One of the most important tips is to fill up when your gas tank is HALF FULL. The reason for this is the more gas you have in your tank the less air occupying its empty space. Gasoline evaporates faster than you can imagine. Gasoline storage tanks have an internal floating roof. This roof serves as zero clearance between the gas and the atmosphere, so it minimizes the evaporation. Unlike service stations, here where I work, every truck that we load is temperature compensated so that every gallon is actually the exact amount.

5️⃣ Another reminder, if there is a gasoline truck pumping into the storage tanks when you stop to buy gas, DO NOT fill up; most likely the gasoline is being stirred up as the gas is being delivered, and you might pick up some of the dirt that normally settles on the bottom.

6️⃣ Note: If the pump repeatedly shuts off early, it could be a sign of a problem with the vapor recovery system, such as a clogged carbon canister.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.