Water Vapor, Not Mankind, is the Greatest Contributor to Green House Gases thumbnail

Water Vapor, Not Mankind, is the Greatest Contributor to Green House Gases

By Dr. Rich Swier

It seems over the past decades there’s been the notion that mankind has been the largest contributor to green house gas emissions. While green house gases do come from things developed to help mankind grow and prosper like: factories, plants that produce energy, cars, trucks, railroads, airplanes, they combined are not the greatest contributor to green house gasses.

It is important to understand what are green house gases and how they help or harm mankind and what should be done.

According to the EPA Greenhouse gases are:

  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement).
  • Methane (CH4) Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.
  • Nitrous oxide (N2O) Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural, land use, industrial activities, combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste, as well as during treatment of wastewater.
  • Fluorinated gases [A]re emitted from a variety of industrial processes.

Therefore, according to the EPA, in order to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 50-52% we must: stop using all fossil fuels, stop making cement, stop transporting coal, natural gas and oil, stop growing crops and raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., stop industrial activities, stop treating waste water and finally end all industrial processes.

QUESTION: Is it necessary to inflict massive hardship on mankind in order to “save the plant”? Or, is there something else going on?

That something else going on which are the natural processes on the earth, in conjunction with the sun, that are the greatest creator of green house gasses and have been since the beginning of time.

What is the Great Contributor to Green House Gases?

Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25%.

In a September 23rd, 2010 article titled “Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming” Anita Dotson wrote:

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Also, a common mistake that people make is to think that the “smoke” rising from power station cooling towers is air pollution. However this is simply water vapor being emitted as steam. This is not air pollution.

On November 17th, 2008 NASA released a report titled “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change.” In the report NASA stated:

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.

“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

The Bottom Line

We have known for decades that water vapor is both a major contributor to green house gases and that water vapor holds in other green house gases. The problem is we, mankind, cannot eliminate the natural production of water vapor on earth.

Simply put, there’s  nothing mankind can do noting to stop the earth from producing water vapor.

Which leads us to the second myth of mankind becoming “carbon neutral.” Governments cannot regulate, mandate or control how much CO2 is in the atmosphere because every living creature from mankind, to animals, to plants, to fish in our vast seas and oceans emit CO2. Each of us, by simply breathing, emits as a by product CO2.

Is the answer for us to stop breathing? Some believe that we must control not only the growth of population but actually reduce our population. This is scary stuff. Who decides who lives and who dies? Who decides what we need to do to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere using draconian measures? Government or you?

In our column “The Unrealistic Myth of Carbon Neutrality” we wrote:

Amazon aims for total carbon neutrality. Apple aims for total carbon neutrality. FedEx plans to replace its entire gas and diesel powered delivery trucks and replace them with electric powered vehicles.  In 2030 Mercedes committed to selling EVs exclusively “where the market allows.” Porsche aims to be totally carbon neutral. In 2025 Jaguar will become an all electric brand. Honda is planning to sell only electric vehicles in America. In 2027 Alfa Romeo plans on selling only electric vehicles in China, Europe and the U.S. In 2035. General Motors pledged to sell only electric vehicles unless “the market demands otherwise” and aims for its global products and operations to be carbon neutral. Mercedes aims to be carbon neutral in 2039. And finally, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru, Toyota and the Volkswagen Group aim for total carbon neutrality by 2050.

Do you see where this is all going? 

If you want to destroy an economy, eliminate jobs, stop heating homes, stop manufacturing cars, trucks, and SUVs that use gasoline or diesel fuels, stop flying planes that use jet fuel, stop manufacturing, end farming, stop getting clean water, and all of those related industries, then just go carbon neutral.

Stopping the use of power plants using coal, natural gas and oil will literally shut down America. Our nation will become worse than a third world country, we would return to the stone age before mankind discovered fire.

QUESTION: Is this idea of carbon neutrality good for you and me or bad for you and me?

ANSWER: NO! Carbon neutrality is about government making decisions that are best left up to individual consumers.

We have learned three things about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate are due to natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring).
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these naturally occurring cycles.

This ends this lesson on what is the greatest contributor to green house gasses and how there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The oceans are absorbing more carbon than previously thought

The Russia/Bermuda Dark Money Subterfuge thumbnail

The Russia/Bermuda Dark Money Subterfuge

By Lawrence Kadish

If there is one thing you can say about the Russians it is that they stick to their proven playbook no matter what carnage they inflict on the innocents or how greatly they deceive the gullible.

During the height of the Cold War, they sought to stop America’s introduction of sophisticated weapons that would have blunted any planned invasion of Western Europe by the Red Army by infiltrating the “peace movement” with money and resources.

So it should come as no surprise that members of Congress continue to express deep concern that Putin’s Russia may be preventing the West’s energy independence by promoting through third parties, who may be unwilling dupes or active co-conspirators, “green” alternatives that are either impractical, aspirational, or an outright fiction.

It has been reported that Russia has been using a legal loophole to actively fund opponents of American energy independence, by funneling untraceable money through an entity in Bermuda, a nation that does require disclosure as to whether funds originated from a foreign government.

The loophole has apparently been serving as an open invitation for Russia — in particular its largest oil and gas company, Gazprom — to channel unlimited, unaccountable millions in dark money (anonymous donations) to American non-governmental organizations; these then fund “green” programs that discourage “dirty” energy exploration, and encourage the use of “clean” energy, such as solar panels and wind turbines. Unfortunately, even if they were able to meet all energy needs — which is disputed — they are not widely available or ready for use.

Such a strategy would not only be consistent with past Soviet/Russian practices but would be expected by a Putin whose long game of chess seeks to hold the West hostage by becoming the major supplier of natural gas to Europe at a time when his operatives have helped shut down viable energy alternatives. So as Putin seeks to decapitate Ukraine, he knows that one source of income for his war machine remains the natural gas that nations such as Germany must have in order to survive economically.

Not surprisingly, the Biden administration’s seemingly inept energy policy has played directly into Putin’s hands. Americans, from the first day of the Biden administration, have been devastated by skyrocketing inflation. The most dramatic example is at the gas pump. In just one year, the price of gasoline — $2.17 a gallon in 2020 — has doubled, with no signs of slowing.

How did we get here?

To appease the Progressive wing of his party, Biden, within days of his inauguration, began shutting down virtually America’s entire energy independence and oil and gas exploration industry, and is still freezing future oil-and-gas drilling leases. The move not only threw thousands of Americans out of work, it has also forced Americans to pay premium prices for just about everything in the American economy — whatever is processed, manufactured, or transported — all of which require fossil fuel energy. Wind turbines and solar panels do not truck supplies to your supermarket, or even build the electric vehicles — costing more than $56,000 a car — that the Biden administration wants you to buy. If you cannot afford $5-a-gallon gasoline, hey, an electric vehicle is your answer! Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s questionable suggestion was, “Take the bus.” The current administration policy seems to be, “Let them eat electric vehicles.”

Some members of Congress understand that this kind of response is more than ludicrous. Buying oil from Russia, Iran, and Venezuela is basically counterproductive. Given the nature of potential threats, it would make America a vassal state.

Congressmen Jim Banks and Bill Johnson have sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, asking for an investigation into the reported Russian manipulation of American “green groups” that are seemingly funded with “dark money.” The letter was following up on an earlier letter sent by Representatives Lamar Smith and Randy Weber to then Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in 2017. Their letter notes:

“According to Sea Change’s tax filing, in 2010 the group received $23 million, half of its total annual contributions, from a Bahamian shell corporation tied to the Russian government. Sea Change then passed that money to groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress who lobbied strongly against fracking and pro-energy policies, to reduce competition with Russian oil and gas. In 2020, the Center for American Progress donated over $800,000 exclusively to Democrat politicians and groups’ and Sierra Club Independent Action spent $3.7 million supporting Democrat candidates.

“Russia also used its state media and social medial disinformation campaigns to attack America’s energy industry. Russia Today is especially focused on energy policy. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Russia Today’s coverage ‘is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.’ In 2021, after Biden’s first year in office, Gazprom, a Russian state-owned energy company, earned record profits.”

The paper trail is chilling and as clear a warning as one could ask for. Yet, as of this writing, it is not clear if Yellen has replied.

Recognizing the one strategic card the Russians have to play, the late U.S. Senator John McCain once said “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.”

In whatever private moments Putin may allow himself, he knows that Russia’s energy exports are the one truly genuine weapon he has against the West, democracy, and the forces of history that are coming for him. If he can prevent affordable energy independence from being achieved by America and her allies, he will have secured a victory beyond measure. But he will need the duped assistance of those in the White House to achieve that objective.

*****

This article was published by the Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Biden’s Dream of ‘Clean Cars’ is Turning Into a Lithium Nightmare thumbnail

Biden’s Dream of ‘Clean Cars’ is Turning Into a Lithium Nightmare

By Dr. Rich Swier

Lithium is often dubbed as “white gold” for the development of electric vehicles.

The cost of lithium needed to make electric car batteries is up 472% just in the past 12 months and 850% since Biden took office.

Biden, Harris, Buttigieg and Democrats want America to go all green and want to force Americans to drive only “clean cars” powered by lithium batteries. All electric vehicles (EVs) are now in the crosshairs. Having charging stations is not the issue. The issue is what will be the future cost of owning “clean cars”?

The The Biden-⁠Harris Electric Vehicle Charging Action Plan states,

President Biden has united automakers and autoworkers to drive American leadership forward on clean cars, and he set an ambitious target of 50% of electric vehicle (EV) sale shares in the U.S. by 2030. Now, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will supercharge America’s efforts to lead the electric future, Building a Better America where we can strengthen domestic supply chains, outcompete the world, and make electric cars cheaper for working families.

There’s only one problem with the Biden-Harris EV action plan, the market and the price for lithium has sky-rocketed.

In the March 22, 2022 edition of the Independent Journal Review Warner Todd Huston reported,

One of the key ingredients in the battery packs that power EVs is lithium. This mineral is important in the production of glass, aluminum products and batteries of all sorts, especially for electric cars.

According to Mining.com, battery-grade lithium carbonate is up 95 percent thus far in 2022, and a whopping 472 percent over the course of the past 12 months.

As the soaring prices of lithium and other minerals needed to manufacture EVs soar, the costs of battery packs for EVs are seeing pressure. Already the battery pack is one of the most expensive parts of an electric vehicle, with prices ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 to replace them — and that does not include labor.

Visual Capitalist posted this chart in an article titled “Charted: Lithium Production by Country (1995-2020)“:

The Largest Lithium Producing Countries

Today, three countries—Australia, Chile, and China—mine roughly 86% of the world’s lithium.

*Production total may not add up to 86,300 due to rounding.

It appears from this chart that the United States produces little of the key ingredient to make Biden’s all electric dream come true. But Communist China, the third-largest lithium producer, has been on the front foot in the race for lithium.

Visual Capitalist reported, “Since 2018, Chinese companies have snapped up over $5 billion worth of lithium mining projects in various countries. Furthermore, the country also dominates the refining and battery manufacturing stages of the lithium-ion supply chain.”

Biden’s Dream has Become a Nightmare

Lithium batteries do not make energy. Batteries do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators.

To say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

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.

Incredibly one must dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.

According to senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Mark P. Mills,

Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

Mills also notes,

A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.

It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

The Bottom Line

Biden’s “clean car” plan is a myth. Clean cars and green energy from solar and windmills cannot and will not make America carbon neutral or energy independent.

As we wrote,

According to the EPA, in order to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 50-52% we must: stop using all fossil fuels, stop making cement, stop transporting coal, natural gas and oil, stop growing crops and raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., stop industrial activities, stop treating waste water and finally end all industrial processes.

Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt used to make EVs, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

The truth is that mankind cannot become carbon neutral without hurting mankind itself.

Biden’s dream is a myth that kills.

Don’t forget that China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled.

EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

P.S.  Don’t forget that CO2 and carbon are not the same.  Carbon is the incredibly versatile element, that as Carl Sagan pointed out years ago, “likes to combine.”  You’re made of it.  Carbon dioxide is what you get when a carbon molecule combines with two molecules of oxygen.  CO2 is the odorless, invisible gas you just exhaled.

An thus ends this lesson on Biden’s clean cars folly.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Did You Ever in Your Wildest Dreams Think They Could Mess Up Things This Much This Fast? thumbnail

Did You Ever in Your Wildest Dreams Think They Could Mess Up Things This Much This Fast?

By Bruce Bialosky

Whenever I have lunch or dinner with someone – especially with recent events — I ask a very straightforward question. “In your wildest dreams did you ever believe they would muck things up this bad, this fast?” I use more vivid language, but I am against using such language in a public forum so I will leave it to your imagination. Sit back and think about the question yourself and derive your own answer.

In a little over a year, the Biden Administration has opened our border to an estimated two million illegal aliens who have been spread throughout the country with very little hope of ever tracking them; shut down a significant amount of our home grown energy production by killing a major pipeline deal costing 3,900 full-time equivalent jobs and pausing oil production on all federal government land which is 25% of national production; taken sanctions off Nordstream 2 to continue the flow of Russian gas to Europe; had a radical withdrawal from Afghanistan that is roundly considered a disaster for the United States; engineered policies that lead to inflation levels not seen in over 40 years which caused a severe depression; and has the world involved in a war in Europe which is destroying a sovereign nation and killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people. In addition, there is an explosion of crime throughout the country that Biden has not caused, but his party has, and he has done little to combat it.

But Biden has solutions. Real solutions.

One of the countermeasures to pressure the Russians to stop their war on Ukraine is to stop the import of Russian oil. Over the last seven months in 2021, we imported 670,000 barrels of oil daily from Russia. Though 73% of that was in process products, we could have easily replaced this production with one policy decision. Had Biden not stopped the Keystone pipeline, we would have a flow of 850,000 barrels a day from friendly neighbor Canada. Biden decided to tell our Canadian neighbor’s “tough luck” and we now have our adversarial supplier – Putin.

Telling the world that America is going to turn on the spigot, produce oil, and gas that will supply us and our allies what we need for energy independence would be a logical and effective solution. We are down an estimated million-plus barrel a day. A simple announcement clearing the regulations for that to occur would crash the price of oil as pricing is based on future expectations.

Uncle Joe has a better idea. Why don’t we engage the Venezuelans and the Iranians to replace the oil and gas from Russia? Nothing like replacing supplies from one murderous despot with two murderous despots. Biden tried to engage the Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, but they will not even talk to Biden because he is negotiating with the Iranians – who are hated by the Arab countries of the Middle East.

Biden reopened negotiations with Iran even while it was on the verge of collapse because American imposed sanctions decimated its cash supplies leaving it on the edge of bankruptcy. Not only is Biden at the table with Iran, but part of the negotiations is – you guessed it — the Russians. Do you think the Russians believe we really want to crush their invasion over here while negotiating with them over there? The Saudis are looking at turning to the Chinese since this American administration antagonizes them at every turn.

You just cannot make this stuff up. If your head is spinning, it is completely expected at this point.

Makes you thankful for small things. Thank God North Korea has a completely dysfunctional economy or Biden would be asking them for some help.

Biden also has a solution for inflation.

President Biden, the very definition of a career politician, tries to find others to blame for his own failings. He angrily states “I am sick of this stuff. We have to talk about it. The American people think the reason for inflation is the government spending more money. That is simply not true. Make no mistake, inflation is largely the fault of Putin. Democrats did not cause this problem. Vladimir Putin did.”

Uncle Joe is right. Adding more than $3 trillion into the economy with made-up money had nothing to do with inflation. Biden missed the class where supply and demand were explained. When there are more dollars chasing fewer products, that does not cause inflation – it is Putin. When people get free money and produce nothing that does not cause inflation – it is Putin. When the federal reserve injects additional money into the economy and holds interest at historically low rates, that does not cause inflation – it is Putin.

We have not even touched on the ridiculously lax border. That would take a whole other column.

Fourteen months into the Biden presidency and you come to your own conclusion. Did you ever in your wildest dreams think that he could muck this up so badly so quickly? We thought it might be bad. We can only pray for the next 34 months.

*****

This article was published in Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

Democrats Can’t Solve Energy-Related Problems Because They Don’t Understand They Are Causing Them thumbnail

Democrats Can’t Solve Energy-Related Problems Because They Don’t Understand They Are Causing Them

By H. Sterling Burnett

With oil prices topping $125.00 per barrel and gasoline prices averaging $4.17 per gallon nationwide for regular as I write, the White House and Democrats in Congress persist in the delusion that the economy can rapidly transition completely to green energy.

Their belief that wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles can effectively and cheaply power the nation while ending the use of energy sources that emit greenhouse gases in their use is foolish and belied by the evidence. Biden et al. are so obsessed with the vain idea that they can control the weather 100 years from now that even a war, ongoing pandemic, rapidly rising inflation, and economic and geopolitical perils looming around the world won’t make them reconsider their ongoing war on fossil fuels.

Therein lies the problem. The first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging. This is especially true if the hole is one you dug yourself. As applied to America’s energy situation, Biden and the Democrats have put us in a hole, and they won’t stop digging. They can’t solve America’s current energy and energy-driven inflation problems if they don’t understand the source of the problems is, in fact, the energy policies they’ve imposed on the nation.

Biden finally caved into growing bipartisan political pressure and agreed to ban Russian oil. In doing so, he admits this will further raise prices in the United States. I cheer this gesture as morally correct even though it is largely futile. We should not be helping fund Russian aggression, but we should also be savvy enough to recognize this action will have little or no impact on Russia’s budget or its ability to wage war and will have a significant impact on the United States, and in Europe should its governments follow suit.

Oil is a fungible commodity, traded on world markets. Unless the ban is global, Russia will just sell its oil to willing buyers in China, India, North Korea, and wherever else oil demand is high and people are not so choosy about it origins—at a discount price if necessary.

Which brings us back to the United States. Oil prices began a steep ascent shortly after Biden became president, long before the Ukraine war began. This was caused in part by the reopening of the economy after the pandemic. However, as detailed in a recent report from The Heartland Institute, the most important factor driving higher oil and gas prices has been the series of anti-fossil-fuel measures implemented by the Biden administration. Heartland’s analysis found the average American household spent $1,000 more on energy costs in 2021 than the year prior, largely because of Biden’s energy policies.

Biden and company fail to understand the basic fact that their climate policies are producing the high prices and shortages apparent across the U.S. economy and their boosting of oil prices increased the funding for Putin’s war machine.

Biden’s response to high oil prices in his State of the Union address was to dig deeper into the hole, doubling down on the failed energy policies that put us in the current crisis.

“Let’s provide investments and tax credits to weatherize your homes and businesses to be energy-efficient and you get a tax credit; double America’s clean energy production in solar, wind, and so much more; lower the price of electric vehicles, saving you another $80 a month because you’ll never have to pay at the gas pump again.” Biden said.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s tone-deaf response to high energy prices was to tweet, “Production is up, rising, and approaching records, yet Russia’s actions still leave our consumers vulnerable. It’s a reminder that real energy security comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) showed complete ignorance of America’s energy dependence on Russia, at a recent press conference. In response to a reporter asking, “What do you make of Sen. Manchin’s proposal to have more domestic oil production?” Schumer replied, “The U.S. is a major oil producer; we only get 1 percent of any imports from Russia.” Schumer was flat wrong! Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows U.S. oil imports from Russia grew to more than 8 percent of all imported oil in 2021, during Biden’s first year in office.

The same EIA report revealed oil imports from Russia to the United States in 2021 grew by more than 24 percent from the last year of Donald Trump’s presidency. Oil imports from Russia in 2021 exceeded the oil imported from Russia in each of Trump’s four years in office, and they were approximately 79 percent greater than the amount imported during the lowest-volume year recorded under Trump.

The plain fact is, the amount of oil that would have been shipped daily through the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, 850,000 barrels per day, could have more than supplanted all the oil imported from Russia daily, had Biden not cancelled its permits on his first day in office.

Donald Trump understood energy issues. He correctly saw climate change as something manageable and recognized fossil fuels remain critical for economic progress. Trump charted a course not just for American energy independence but energy dominance, with his policies making us a net energy exporter for the first time since the 1950s. Biden has been reversing these policies as fast as he can sign orders between naps.

Republicans understand the problem. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other Senate and House Republicans are offering bills to rescind the executive actions Biden has imposed to prevent pipeline development and delay new oil and gas exploration and production. The congressional Democrats say these bill won’t see the light of day as long as they are in control. The Democratic leadership doesn’t get it. Because they don’t get it, they may not be in control of Congress much longer.

The energy and space entrepreneur and social media darling Elon Musk gets it. Despite leading the largest, most successful electric vehicle manufacturer in the world, Tesla—a company that benefits from higher oil and gas prices—Musk recently called for increasing U.S. oil and gas production.

“Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil and gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures,” Musk tweeted to his nearly 63 million Twitter followers. “Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil and gas exports.”

In calling for increased oil and gas production, Musk is putting the nation’s well-being ahead of his self-interest. He’s an energy realist. In this climate-woke day and age, that makes him a both a champion of reason and a patriot.

Democrats deny energy reality. What that makes them, I’ll let the reader decide, but in my opinion it paints them as fools or traitors.

The cartoon character Pogo’s famous statement, “We have met the enemy, and he is us,” was meant to be humorous. His quip has rarely captured a political situation more aptly than with the high prices Americans face today because of Biden’s climate and energy policies. It’s not funny at all.

This can be remedied over the course of the next two election cycles, though sooner would be better.

*****

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

SEC Unveils Sweeping Climate Requirements For Public Companies thumbnail

SEC Unveils Sweeping Climate Requirements For Public Companies

By The Geller Report

The left’s climate hoax wrecking ball is taking down our markets – the financial foundation of this once great nation.

SEC Unveils Sweeping Climate Requirements For Public Companies

By: Thomas Catenacci, Daily Caller, March 21, 2022:

  • The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rules Monday that would force companies to publicly disclose a wide-range of climate-related information.
  • “I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who President Joe Biden appointed in February 2021, said in a statement.
  • The SEC, the nation’s top financial regulator, would require publicly-traded companies to disclose how “severe weather events and other natural conditions” may impact their business, under the proposed rules, according to an announcement.
  • “Today’s action hijacks the democratic process and disrespects the limited scope of authority that Congress gave to the SEC,” Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey said in a statement. “This is a thinly-veiled effort to have unelected financial regulators set climate and energy policy for America.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rules that would force companies to publicly disclose a wide-range of climate-related information.

The SEC, the nation’s top financial regulator, would require publicly-traded companies to disclose how “severe weather events and other natural conditions” may impact their business, under the proposed rules, according to the Monday announcement. Companies would also be forced to publish the greenhouse gas emissions produced from their operations.

“I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who President Joe Biden appointed in February 2021, said in a statement.

“Today’s proposal would help issuers more efficiently and effectively disclose these risks and meet investor demand, as many issuers already seek to do,” he said. “Companies and investors alike would benefit from the clear rules of the road proposed in this release.”

In addition, companies would be required to share their transition plans as part of their “climate-related risk management strategy,” the proposal stated.

The commission published a complete list of a dozen requirements companies must comply with under the rule.

“The proposal will undermine the existing regulatory framework that for many decades has undergirded consistent, comparable, and reliable company disclosures,” SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, the agency’s lone Republican, said during a hearing on the proposal held Monday. “We cannot make such fundamental changes to our disclosure regime without harming investors, the economy, and this agency.”……..

RELATED ARTICLES:

Price of Lithium Needed to Make Electric Car Batteries Up 472% in Last 12 Months

64 Percent of Americans Blame Inflation on President Biden’s Policies

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

The Biden/Buttigieg Solution To High Gas Prices: ‘Take The Bus!’ thumbnail

The Biden/Buttigieg Solution To High Gas Prices: ‘Take The Bus!’

By The Geller Report

The Biden regime contemptuously commands Americans to ‘take the bus’ in the wake of Biden-created obscene gas pricing.

The 2022 version of ‘let them eat cake.’ Literally. Actually cake is better.

Pete Buttigieg’s Solution To High Gas Prices: Take The Bus/Trainhttps://t.co/APXkS32e1u

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) March 16, 2022

“If you don’t like the price of gasoline, take the bus”. “We have busses in our toolbox for the people.”

-Pete Buttigieg

— John Smith (@JohnSmi25391165) March 19, 2022

Inflation stings most if you earn less than $300K. Here’s how to deal:

➡️ Take the bus

➡️ Don’t buy in bulk

➡️ Try lentils instead of meat

➡️ Nobody said this would be fun https://t.co/HGJEoXL5ZZ

— Bloomberg Opinion (@bopinion) March 19, 2022

RELATED ARTICLE: President of El Salvador on USA: “Something so big and powerful can’t be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within”

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Poll: Americans Want More Domestic Energy Production thumbnail

Poll: Americans Want More Domestic Energy Production

By Casey Harper

The increased pressure on the U.S. oil supply and soaring gas prices have left the vast majority of Americans calling for more domestic oil production.

Convention of States Action along with The Trafalgar Group released new polling data that showed that 77.3% of surveyed American voters say that, “in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden should make increasing American energy production a priority.”

Notably, 77.6% of Independents and even 67% of Democrats agree.

“We can see in these numbers that Americans of all political stripes are being heavily impacted at the gas pump and want to see decisive action to ease our inflation-plagued economy,” said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action. “But this is not only about lowering prices, it’s also obvious to everyone that buying oil from our enemies threatens both America’s national security and our economy.”

The Biden administration has taken fire for its energy policies, particularly slowing domestic drilling and pipeline development while simultaneously calling on foreign powers like OPEC to increase supply.

According to AAA, the national average of gas prices is at $4.29 per gallon, a major increase from $2.88 at the same time last year. Gas prices have hit record highs in recent days after steadily increasing in the past year.

“Voters want Americans to benefit from American-produced energy,” Meckler said.

The poll was conducted March 7 through March 11 by surveying 1,000 likely 2022 voters.

Democrats blocked the Republican-led American Energy Independence from Russia Act, which would open oil and gas leases around the country, authorize the Keystone XL pipeline without presidential permitting, among other pro-energy measures.

“In addition, the bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to approve or deny applications for facilities to export natural gas from the United States to foreign countries or import natural gas from foreign countries,” the bill’s summary reads. “The President and federal agencies must obtain congressional approval before (1) prohibiting or substantially delaying certain new energy mineral leases or permits on federal lands, or (2) withdrawing certain federal lands from mineral and geothermal leasing activities. The Department of the Interior must resume issuing oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf as specified under the bill.”

Republicans have pushed hard for the bill, arguing that energy independence is a national security necessity.

“I continue to urge President Biden and my colleagues across the aisle to join us to get this done and flip the switch on American energy,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. “The American Energy Independence from Russia Act removes all restrictions on our LNG exports to deliver natural gas to our allies in Europe. It restarts oil and gas leasing on our federal lands and waters. Because we need more pipelines, which is the safest way to transport energy, it approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

“We must say ‘yes’ to bolstering our energy security. It’s how we strengthen our geopolitical power and help President Zelenskyy win this war,” she added.

*****

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

PROPAGANDA WATCH: MSNBC, CNN, PBS Echo Biden’s Lie that Putin Caused Gas Price Hikes thumbnail

PROPAGANDA WATCH: MSNBC, CNN, PBS Echo Biden’s Lie that Putin Caused Gas Price Hikes

By Jihad Watch

“Gas prices have risen 59% since Biden took office — prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

These are not news outlets, and have not been for a long time. They exist in order to propagate the socialist globalist line, and to act as a PR arm for the Democrat Party.

by Nikolas Lanum, Fox News, March 17, 2022 (thanks to the Geller Report):

Liberal pundits and journalists have claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is the true catalyst behind the rising cost of American goods, including gasoline, all while deflecting criticism aimed at President Biden and his administration.

Despite the possible impact of the White House’s rampant spending and progressive energy policies, many outlets brushed and laughed off criticisms levied against the Biden administration, instead bending over backward to link inflation and the cost of oil explicitly to the turmoil in Ukraine.

Last Thursday, Biden said the recent inflation report is representative of the negative impacts Americans are feeling as a result of Putin’s actions.

“Today’s inflation report is a reminder that Americans’ budgets are being stretched by price increases and families are starting to feel the impacts of Putin’s price hike. A large contributor to inflation this month was an increase in gas and energy prices as markets reacted to Putin’s aggressive actions,” Biden said in a written statement.

NBC was responsible for a number of attempts to tie the recent war in Europe to price hikes hitting Americans, in many cases even repeating Biden’s newly coined “Putin price hike” phrase.

“Well, here at home, the toll of the war is having an ever greater impact on the U.S. economy. With soaring inflation and gas prices, Americans are paying more,” co-host Savannah Guthrie said at the top of a Friday NBC “Today” segment.

That same day on “3rd Hour Today,” co-host Craig Melvin provided an intro reminiscent of Guthrie’s words.

“Meanwhile, that war in Ukraine having quite the impact here at home, where just about everything is costing more these days, in some cases a lot more,” said Melvin, before asking correspondent Morgan Chesky about the “driving forces” behind the price increases.

“…the Biden administration is very much calling this ‘Putin’s price hike,’ with this war ongoing, there will be a significant impact going forward,” Chesky responded.

During MSNBC’s “MTP Daily with Chuck Todd,” chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that calling inflation “Putin’s price hike” was a “great way” to message the issue.

The show’s host, Chuck Todd, also hopped on the “Putin price hike” bandwagon during the segment and added that Biden’s commitment to keeping the war in Ukraine, by utilizing sanctions, was another possible way for the president to portray the issue positively to the American people.

Many show hosts, as well as their guests, also urged viewers to ignore Republican claims that Biden is responsible for rising gasoline costs and instead instructed them to blame Putin and American energy companies.

“[Republicans] are blaming Biden for rising gas prices. Meanwhile, guess who gets off scot-free? Not just Putin, but the big oil and gas companies,” said Mehdi Hasan during his Monday MSNBC show….

On CNN, media correspondent Brian Stelter asked whether the media could engage in an “honest” conversation on gas prices, before pivoting to lambast media outlets “exaggerating” fuel costs. The “Reliable Sources” host then made mention of a New York Times “fact-check” explicitly entitled “Republicans wrongly blame Biden for rising gas prices.”

On March 10, “CNN Newsroom” co-host Alisyn Camerota engaged in a discussion on inflation with global economic analyst Rana Foroohar.

“Politicians act as though it’s President Biden that caused inflation and that he can fix this,” Camerota said as Foroohar laughed….

Gas prices have risen 59% since Biden took office — prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — with the nationwide average hovering just over $4.30, according to the report….

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

Net-Zero and ESG are Worsening the Energy Crisis – and Weakening the West thumbnail

Net-Zero and ESG are Worsening the Energy Crisis – and Weakening the West

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

The day after President Biden announced that the United States would ban imports of Russian oil and gas, a group of eleven powerful European investment funds that includes Amundi, Europe’s largest asset manager, outlined plans to force Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second largest bank, to cut its lending to oil and gas companies. The juxtaposition of these two events dramatizes the fundamental disunity of the West. At the same time as the Biden administration is sanctioning Russian oil and gas producers, Western investors are sanctioning Western ones. Under the banner of ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing, the West’s capital is being deployed to create an artificial shortage of oil and gas produced by its companies and reward non-Western oil and gas producers such as Russia and Iran with higher prices. In doing so, the West is undermining its own security interests.

Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy markets were already extremely tight. In the past, high oil and gas prices stimulated a supply-side response leading to increased output and to prices falling back. This relationship has broken down. According to analysts at JP Morgan, capital spending by S&P Global 1200 energy companies peaked in 2015 at just over $400 billion and shrank to around $120 billion last year – less than half its previous trough of $250 billion in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, even though global demand is now around 15% higher than it was then.

Over the past decade and throughout the pandemic, investors could earn higher returns elsewhere, such as in tech – but with soaring prices, that assumption doesn’t hold any longer. In remarks to oil executives at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston last week, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm pointed the finger at Wall Street. “Your investors are demanding climate action,” she told an audience filled with executives of energy firms. To ESG investors, climate action means deliberately starving oil and gas producers of capital for non-financial reasons, leading to under-investment and rising prices.

Granholm is being a lot more honest than Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). “The current high energy prices are nothing to do with net zero,” Birol told The Guardian last month. “This is not a clean energy crisis, or a renewable energy crisis. These claims are irresponsible and are being used to attack public support for the net zero transition.” In fact, it is Birol who is being irresponsible. He understands as well as anyone that the net zero transition involves ramping up investment in renewable energy and throttling investment in new oil, gas, and coal production down to zero. He knows this, because in May of last year, the IEA released its Net Zero by 2050 roadmap for the energy sector, arguing for exactly this.

The IEA’s net zero scenario for 2050 relies heavily on “ever-cheaper” wind and solar. Nuclear barely gets a look in, and the IEA magically solves the intermittency problem of wind and solar by not mentioning the word “intermittency” once in the report’s 224 pages. By ignoring the inherent limitations of weather-dependent electricity generation, the IEA gave its imprimatur to a green fantasy of near 100% renewable electricity generation, with fossil fuels playing an insignificant role in keeping the electrical grid stable and the lights on. This fiction was necessary to justify the report’s most quoted passage. “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development,” it said of its net zero pathway, meaning that “the focus for oil and gas producers switches entirely to output – emissions reductions – from the operation of existing assets.”

ESG investors and climate activists seized on the IEA’s call to stop all investment in new oil and gas production. “This is a huge step forward for the IEA and an important signal that the world must move away from fossil fuels today – not tomorrow,” the World Resources Institute blogged. “1.5C means no new fossil fuels, says the IEA,” ShareAction, the group co-ordinating the Credit Suisse proxy fight, declared, referring to the 1.5-degree maximum warming target. “The new scenario will make uncomfortable reading for many companies – and those that finance them.”

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Author

Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.

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

FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy thumbnail

FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy

By Dr. Rich Swier

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” – John Fitzgerald Kennedy

“There are three facts about the climate (weather): 1. the climate changes, 2. the changes in the climate follow natural cycles (i.e. summer, fall, winter, spring), and 3. there is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.” – Dr. Rich Swier, Ed.D.

One of the greatest persistent, persuasive and unrealistic myths is the idea that the United States must abandon coal, fossil and nuclear fuels in favor of windmills and solar panels. This persistent, persuasive and unrealistic myth is now public policy!

The The Biden-⁠Harris Electric Vehicle Charging Action Plan states,

President Biden has united automakers and autoworkers to drive American leadership forward on clean cars, and he set an ambitious target of 50% of electric vehicle (EV) sale shares in the U.S. by 2030. Now, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will supercharge America’s efforts to lead the electric future, Building a Better America where we can strengthen domestic supply chains, outcompete the world, and make electric cars cheaper for working families.

[ … ]

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes the most transformative investment in electric vehicle charging in U.S. history that will put us on the path to a convenient and equitable network of 500,000 chargers and make EVs accessible to all Americas for both local and long-distance trips. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $5 billion in formula funding for states with a goal to build a national charging network. 10% is set-aside each year for the Secretary to provide grants to States to help fill gaps in the network. The Law also provides $2.5 billion for communities and corridors through a competitive grant program that will support innovative approaches and ensure that charger deployment meets Administration priorities such as supporting rural charging, improving local air quality and increasing EV charging access in disadvantaged communities. Together, this is the largest-ever U.S. investment in EV charging and will be a transformative down payment on the transition to a zero-emission future. [Emphasis added]

Read the full plan here.

QUESTION: What exactly will charge the chargers and the batteries in these clean cars?

EVs Are Not So Green

A reader send us a link to this post on Reddit:

Not so Green

This is an excellent breakdown.

Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds 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.”

Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”

I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.

“Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.

The Bottom Line

EVs are neither carbon-neutral nor powered by batteries. The batteries in EVs are all powered by other energy sources. The truth is that mankind cannot become carbon neutral without hurting mankind itself.

We have long recommended that America go all nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean, carbon free, reliable and cheap.

As we wrote in our column “America’s Energy Future: Oil, Natural Gas and Nuclear“:

America’s power lies in its ability to provide power to the engines of our current and future economic growth.

Starving America of power, makes America powerless. Starving our citizens of cheap and reliable power is a direct threat to our fiscal and national security.

To be powerful America needs powerful sources of energy. Nuclear, oil (for gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels) and natural gas are the best and most accessible means to energy independence.

Energy independence translates into life, liberty and the pursuit of our collective happiness.

Without cheap and reliable power sources the lights in that city on the hill will most certainly go out – for everyone.

Powerup America.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

International Energy Agency Urges Energy Lockdowns Due to Russian War — Bans use of private cars on Sundays, SUV tax thumbnail

International Energy Agency Urges Energy Lockdowns Due to Russian War — Bans use of private cars on Sundays, SUV tax

By Marc Morano

‘Banning use of private cars on Sundays…Reducing highway speed limits…more working from home…cutting business air travel’ & SUV ‘tax’. – IEA Report 

IEA report ‘A 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use’ excerpts:

“Reducing highway speed limits by about 6 miles per hour; more working from home; street changes to encourage walking and cycling; car-free Sundays in cities and restrictions on other days; cutting transit fares; policies that encourage more carpooling; cutting business air travel; and more.” … “Governments have all the necessary tools at their disposal to put oil demand into decline in the coming years, which would support efforts to both strengthen energy security and achieve vital climate goals.” …

Restricting private cars’ use of roads in large cities to those with even number-plates some weekdays and to those with odd-numbered plates on other weekdays

Car-free Sundays in cities: Banning the use of private cars on Sundays

‘Tax’ SUVs: “Sales of SUVs also keep increasing…policies to address the rise in sales of such vehicles – such as specific registration and road taxes – are key.” … Ban installation of new oil boilers

Climate Depot’s Morano: 

“COVID 2.0 has arrived?! The 2022 International Energy Agency’s (IEA) report sounds an awful lot like an energy version of COVID lockdowns. Instead of opening America back up for domestic energy production, we are told to suffer and do with less and are prescribed the same failed lockdown-style policies we endured for COVID.

It is odd how COVID ‘solutions’ also allegedly helped the climate and now the same solutions are being touted to deal with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  As a bonus, IEA tells us these measures will also help ‘achieve vital climate goals.’

Let’s simplify this: The proposed ‘solutions’ to climate change, COVID, and now the Russian war are all exactly the same — hammer the poor and middle class with more restrictions on travel, less freedom, and even more surrendering of power to unelected government regulators.

This new 2022 report from IEA comes follows their 2021 report urging a form of climate lockdowns to battle global warming. The 2021 IEA report called for ‘behavioral changes’ to fight climate and ‘a shift away from private car use’ and ‘upper speed limits’ and thermostat controls; limits on hot water & more!.“

From COVID Emergency to War & Back to ‘Climate Emergency’: House Dems want Biden to declare national ‘climate emergency’

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – March 18, 2022 11:16 AM

Via Axios

Russia crisis spurs push to cut oil use

By Ben Geman

The International Energy Agency just unveiled ideas for quickly cutting oil demand at a time when Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine could bring substantial loss of Russian barrels from global markets.

Why it matters: The 10-point plan comes amid IEA warnings that the war could become the biggest supply crisis in decades as countries look to isolate Russia.

  • It’s part of a wider reckoning in Europe — Russia’s largest market — and elsewhere over how to curb reliance on Russia while keeping markets supplied and avoiding even greater economic shocks.

Zoom in: The plan says that “immediate actions” in advanced economies could reduce global oil demand by about 2.7 million barrels per day within four months.

They include…

  • Reducing highway speed limits by about 6 miles per hour; more working from home; street changes to encourage walking and cycling; car-free Sundays in cities and restrictions on other days; cutting transit fares; policies that encourage more carpooling; cutting business air travel; and more.

The big picture: Russia is the world’s largest combined exporter of crude and oil products combined and the second-largest crude exporter.

  • The plan arrives two days after IEA projected that Russian exports could fall by around 2.5 million barrels per day next month and maybe more “should restrictions or public condemnation escalate.”

Our thought bubble: This all seems … maybe hard to imagine? The idea of coordinated adoption of mass behavioral changes on a compressed time frame sounds like an uphill climb.

IEA PRESS RELAEASE: Emergency measures can quickly cut global oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day, reducing the risk of a damaging supply crunch

In the face of the emerging global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the IEA’s 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use proposes 10 actions that can be taken to reduce oil demand with immediate impact – and provides recommendations for how those actions can help pave the way to putting oil demand onto a more sustainable path in the longer term. …

If fully carried out in advanced economies, the measures recommended by the IEA’s new 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use would lower oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day within four months – equivalent to the oil demand of all the cars in China. This would significantly reduce potential strains at a time when a large amount of Russian supplies may no longer reach the market and the peak demand season of July and August is approaching. The measures would have an even greater effect if adopted in part or in full in emerging economies as well. …

The new report also includes recommendations for decisions to be taken now by governments and citizens to transition from the short-term emergency actions included in the 10-Point Plan to sustained measures that would put countries’ oil demand into a structural decline consistent with a pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050. …

The short-term actions it proposes include reducing the amount of oil consumed by cars through lower speed limits, working from home, occasional limits on car access to city centres, cheaper public transport, more carpooling and other initiatives – and greater use of high-speed rail and virtual meetings instead of air travel.

Most of the proposed actions in the 10-Point Plan would require changes in the behaviour of consumers, supported by government measures.

The new report also includes recommendations for decisions to be taken now by governments and citizens to transition from the short-term emergency actions included in the 10-Point Plan to sustained measures that would put countries’ oil demand into a structural decline consistent with a pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050.

[ … ]

The short-term actions it proposes include reducing the amount of oil consumed by cars through lower speed limits, working from home, occasional limits on car access to city centres, cheaper public transport, more carpooling and other initiatives – and greater use of high-speed rail and virtual meetings instead of air travel.

[ … ]

Several of the measures can be implemented directly by other layers of government – such as state, regional or local – or just voluntarily followed by citizens and corporates, enabling them to save money while showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine. …

The IEA report notes that reducing oil use must not remain a temporary measure. Sustained reductions are important not only to improve countries’ energy security but also to tackle climate change and reduce air pollution. Governments have all the necessary tools at their disposal to put oil demand into decline in the coming years, and the report sets out the key ones to achieve this goal, including hastening the adoption of electric vehicles, raising fuel economy standards, boosting alternative fuel supplies, accelerating heat pump deployment, and producing and consuming plastic more sustainably.

Full Report: A 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use

Alternate private car access to roads in large cities Using high-speed and night trains instead of planes where possible Avoid business air travel where alternative options exist

Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles Banning the use of private cars on Sundays

[ … ]

Restricting private cars’ use of roads in large cities to those with even number-plates some weekdays and to those with odd-numbered plates on other weekdays is a measure with a long track record of successful implementation. During the first oil shock, the Italian government substituted car-free Sundays with an odd/even number plate policy. Since the 1980s, such schemes have been deployed in many cities to tackle congestion and air pollution peaks, including Athens, Madrid, Paris, Milan and Mexico City. …

But governments must also consider accelerating their clean energy transitions and building on their net zero emissions strategies. To reach net zero emissions by 2050, oil demand in advanced economies in 2030 must be more than 15 million barrels a day lower than in 2021.

[ … ]

Yet sales of SUVs also keep increasing, with the vehicles accounting for nearly 10% of oil use in advanced economies. Policies to address the rise in sales of such vehicles – such as specific registration and road taxes – are key to achieve steady overall fuel economy progress and oil savings …

Accelerate the replacement of oil boilers with heat pumps and ban installation of new ones:

  • Alternate private car access to roads in large cities
  • Using high-speed and night trains instead of planes where possible
  • Avoid business air travel where alternative options exist
  • Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Flashback May 2021: Climate lockdowns!? New International Energy Agency’s ‘Net-Zero’ report urges ‘behavioral changes’ to fight climate: ‘A shift away from private car use…. upper speed limits’ & thermostat controls; limits on hot water & more!

BBC claims ‘climate lockdowns’ are nothing but ‘conspiracy theories’ – Reality Check: ‘Climate lockdowns’ touted by Gates & Soros funded professors, Govts, media, & academia

Google & Big Tech now treating Russia like climate skeptics: ‘Google has now suspended monetization on YouTube for all users in Russia’

“Google has now suspended monetization on YouTube for all users in Russia. Applies to other services, as well.”

Climate Depot Morano: “Big Tech does not differentiate between Russia & climate skeptics. (See:Google has demonetized skeptical meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s website for allegedly ‘unreliable & harmful’ climate information)To all of you cheering on Big Tech and corporations banning and de-platforming anything ‘Russian’ right now, you may want to think again. If you ever find yourself on the wrong end of the official state narrative on climate, war or COVID policies, this could be your free speech and your personal bank cards being banned. The coordination and speed of the censorship cancel culture are frightening and will be used against anyone including private citizens who dare dissent. Will electric car drivers one day have their vehicles ‘deactivated’ if their views diverge from the official government claims?!” (See: Elon Musk urged to deactivate all Teslas in Russia, following the country’s invasion of Ukraine)

Alert! Covid 2.0?! Biden urged to ‘essentially nationalize private industry’ to ensure lower energy prices & ‘a tool to combat climate change’ – ‘Invoke Cold-War Powers’

Climate Depot’s Morano: “Here we go again! Wartime emergency powers granted to the executive branch to battle a ‘crisis’ without the messiness of market forces or democracy. Can anyone say more Chinese-style one-party rule?!”

Watch: Morano on One America TV: ‘Intended consequences’ – ‘John Kerry & Biden admin aren’t that upset that Americans & Europeans are getting hammered with’ high prices

Nation Mag: ‘The Case for Declaring a National Climate Emergency’ – ‘There is no greater emergency’

From COVID Emergency to ‘Climate Emergency’: House Dems want Biden to declare national ‘climate emergency’

Celebrate?! War can help solve climate change! Biden Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm: War in Ukraine ‘creates a moment,’ an ‘urgent moment’ to transition to ‘clean energy’

©Marc Morano. All rights reserved.

Republicans Probe Putin’s Alleged Effort To ‘Undermine American Energy Security’ By Funding US Green Groups thumbnail

Republicans Probe Putin’s Alleged Effort To ‘Undermine American Energy Security’ By Funding US Green Groups

By Thomas Catenacci

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced a probe into several green energy groups reported to have taken money from an allegedly Russian-funded foundation seeking to undermine U.S. energy security.

The GOP committee members wrote to three groups Thursday — the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club — demanding more information about their financial ties to the California-based Sea Change Foundation. The Republicans cited reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin has funneled money through Sea Change to the environmental groups, according to the letters sent to the groups’ leaders.

The NRDC vehemently denied the allegations Thursday, saying the reports Republicans referenced were false.

“It has been alleged that Putin is using a San Francisco-based eNGO, the Sea Change Foundation (Sea Change), to funnel money into U.S.-based environmental advocacy efforts designed to undermine American energy production,” the GOP’s letters stated. “According to a 2014 report, Sea Change receives contributions from a ‘Bermuda-based company called Klein Ltd.’ which is used ‘for funneling Russian government money to American environmental groups in order to undermine U.S. natural gas and oil production to Russia’s benefit.’”

“Notably, reports suggest that your organization is one of the top e-NGO recipients of Sea Change grants since 2006,” they added. (RELATED: House Republicans Demand Info On Climate Groups’ Ties To China)

The Sea Change Foundation was founded in 2006 as a private family foundation dedicated to addressing global climate change, according to its website.

The organization had net end-of-year assets worth more than $255.7 million and raised more than $54 million in 2018, its latest annual filing with the Internal Revenue Service showed. Its top contributors were its co-founders and co-directors Nathaniel Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons and a fund under their name, the 2019 filing showed.

Klein Ltd., the Bermuda-based company that has allegedly funneled money from Russia to Sea Change, according to the letters Thursday, has previously denied such efforts, The Washington Times reported. Klein Ltd. was founded in 2011 and now operates under the name Sea Change Foundation International, of which Simons and Baxter-Simons are co-directors.

Sea Change Foundation International is the “international philanthropic counterpart” to Sea Change.

“I wish to clarify that press reports speculating that Klein has received funding from outside sources are factually incorrect and have no basis,” Simons said in a statement amid speculation of Sea Change’s finances in 2018, according to Inside Philanthropy. “Neither Klein nor Sea Change Foundation has ever solicited or accepted contributions from non-family related sources.”

But in their letters to the environmental groups that reportedly received significant contributions from Sea Change, the Republicans posed a series of questions about how closely affiliated they were with the Russian government. They also asked which specific programs the funds received from Sea Change were earmarked for.

“Any action by President Putin, the Russian government, or Putin’s allies to undermine American energy security must be addressed,” they wrote.

They requested answers from the groups by March 25.

The NRDC, however, echoed Simons and characterized the allegations as a “distraction” in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“These allegations are false. We receive no funding from the governments of Russia or China,” NRDC’s director of strategic engagement Bob Deans told the DCNF. “We answer to our independent leadership, and we don’t do the bidding of any government – foreign or otherwise – in our work to advocate for commonsense environmental protections in the public interest.”

“These allegations are rooted in a smear campaign orchestrated nearly a decade ago by fossil fuel interests and a right-wing think tank,” he continued.

Sea Change, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In February, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, disrupting global energy markets and exposing Western reliance on Russia for oil and gas. Republicans and fossil fuel industry groups have urged Biden to reverse course on his energy agenda and incentivize greater domestic energy production.

*****

This article was published by Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

VIDEO: Sometimes Conservation is a Bear thumbnail

VIDEO: Sometimes Conservation is a Bear

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

How do we find the best solutions for both bears, and people too?

That’s what Gabriella Hoffman set off to find out on the latest episode of CFACT’s Conservation Nation series. Hoffman traveled to Montana and Wyoming to interview stakeholders and find out what’s really going on with Grizzly and Black Bear conservation.

Watch the full episode.

Environmentalists would have you believe that to properly conserve nature, humans must have zero interaction with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. When people are properly managing lands and wildlife, both people and animals thrive. That’s exactly the point those on the ground in Big Sky Country working with the bears had to say.

Listen to their stories for yourself!

Hoffman also brought this “conservation is conservative” message to several college campuses as well, including Florida State and Appalachian State University in North Carolina. Speeches at Michigan Technical University, George Mason University, Boston University, and the Ohio State University are also scheduled.

Students got to hear about how hunting and fishing helps drive conservation efforts, and why proper use of our federal lands (by allowing energy production on them!) helps fund National Parks and drive energy independence.

If only some representatives from the Biden Administration could have attended and learned something!

Finally, every week, CFACT promotes a commonsense conservation message through Hoffman’s District of Conservation podcast, sponsored by CFACT. Check out some of the latest episodes, like this one that covers how Virginia is now open for hunting on Sundays, and this one that lambasts Biden’s energy and land use policies for playing into Putin’s hands when it comes to gas prices.

Share these videos and podcasts with a friend, and let’s spread the word that real conservation requires humans to be involved through free markets, smart ideas, and local stakeholders.

Author

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

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

When ‘Emperors’ Preaching ESG Purport to Represent Millions of Us, a Lot Can Go Wrong thumbnail

When ‘Emperors’ Preaching ESG Purport to Represent Millions of Us, a Lot Can Go Wrong

By Patrick Tyrrell

The misappropriation of the economic freedom of millions of mom-and-pop investors by BlackRock Inc. CEO Larry Fink has unintended consequences.

“We have a new bunch of emperors, and they’re the people who vote the shares in the index funds,” Charlie Munger, business partner of philanthropist Warren Buffett and a big proponent of index fund investing, recently said.

“I think the world of Larry Fink, but I’m not sure I want him to be my emperor,” Munger said.

Fink runs BlackRock, a leading investment management company that sells stock index funds to investors. BlackRock currently holds many trillions of dollars in corporate stocks in these index funds.

Fink is powerful. He has benefited perhaps more than anyone else from the prevalence of index fund investing. He also is a big proponent of what is called Environmental, Social, Governance investing, or ESG.

Here’s how it works: Millions of investors buy a BlackRock index fund because they basically want to own the stock index. Instead of being owners of one company or a few companies, when they buy the iShares S&P 500 Index Fund, for example, they own a fraction of every single stock in the S&P 500, in the same percentage in the stock index at the time they buy.

Index funds earn the return of the index they represent; the return on an index fund investment, then, is equivalent to the return of the stock index itself for however long an investor owns it before subtracting BlackRock’s management fees.

BlackRock in turn buys shares of every company in the index in proportion to the money its customers spend on its index funds. The investment management giant then sells them when its customers sell the index funds, to pay the customer.

The stock market rises over the long run, so index funds are a safer investment than speculating on stocks because individual stocks frequently underperform their indexes and because individual companies can go bankrupt, wiping out investments.

When millions of people buy trillions of dollars of BlackRock’s index funds, the company ends up holding in its accounts an equivalent amount of every stock in the stock index. This is called passive investing, as opposed to active investing, because no one is picking certain stocks as investments on which to earn a gain; instead, investors are simply buying or selling every stock in an index.

As of Dec. 31, 2021, Blackrock held an amount equal to over 28% of the U.S. gross domestic product in passive investments in the company’s accounts for its index fund holders.

Nothing is wrong with index funds. Investments in index funds mimic the returns of the overall stock market because by acquiring an index fund, one owns a tiny fraction of every company in a stock index, such as the S&P 500, or the MSCI World Index of global stocks.

A problem exists, however, with Fink, who votes the stock holdings in BlackRock’s index funds at shareholder meetings as if he is the investor who owns many trillions of dollars of stocks—which he is not.

As of Dec. 31, according to BlackRock’s annual report, Fink, through his company’s index funds, was voting the shares of $6.45 trillion in stock.

Talking heads on television and in the financial press, along with finance professors in colleges and universities, long have preached the merits of index fund investing based on a theory called the efficient-market hypothesis. That theory says that the value of a stock at a given time is closely reflected in its current stock price, making it unfeasible for someone to consistently beat the stock market index by picking individual stocks.

The efficient-market hypothesis is true for the average investor. The success of Wall Street titans such as Buffett and Carl Icahn disproves it as the one-size-fits-all, best option for everyone, as does the success of an untold number of anonymous investors who have made large fortunes but aren’t included in the research findings on the returns of mutual funds.  But that is beside the point.

New York Post columnist Charlie Gasparino recently explained what Fink’s ESG advocacy means, writing that the BlackRock CEO

is known for pushing for something called stakeholder capitalism (which I’ve criticized)—a squishy concept in which corporations look to better the human race as opposed to churning out profits for shareholders. And his embrace of some woke policies through the investment fad known as ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards.

In its 2020 annual report, BlackRock states:

We invest our clients’ money in companies of all types and sizes, in every region of the world. These investments provide capital for companies to grow and create jobs, which, in turn, enables economies and societies to prosper. We use our voice as shareholders to urge companies to focus on important issues that will also impact the value of their investments, like climate change, the fair treatment of workers and equality. We are also working through the BlackRock Foundation to expand financial security for low income groups who face barriers to economic participation and may be vulnerable to disruption from climate change.

That focus on climate change is why BlackRock, as ExxonMobil’s second-biggest shareholder, sided with a group of shareholders who owned just 0.02% of ExxonMobil in voting to replace board members with new ones who believe that:

ExxonMobil’s lack of any serious diversification efforts and aggressive spending predicated on heavy long-term oil and gas demand for decades to come, risks massive continued long-term value destruction in a world intent on reducing all emissions …

Is it really for Fink, commanding the votes of millions of shares purchased by other investors, to decide whether a large oil company should reduce its investments in oil and gas that people rely on to survive?

What a bully tactic by a bully who is voting his agenda with billions of dollars of shareholders’ voting rights purchased by others who bought Fink’s index funds. They did so to earn a return on their investment portfolio equal to that of the overall stock market, not so that Fink could pretend he was them at shareholders meetings of virtually every company in the world and vote their shares.

Such interference by Fink and other index fund company chief executives because they presume to know what is good for the planet can have unintended and drastic consequences.

Right now, the average cost of gasoline is spiraling upward. And big oil and gas companies have not been investing in new exploration in recent years, partly because Fink, other ESG advocates, and now President Joe Biden’s administration have been lurking over their shoulders and stigmatizing the fuel we all need to drive our cars and heat our homes.

These players have created a large deal of uncertainty about what the future will be for energy exploration and drilling. In the case of Biden, he put huge restrictions on oil and gas drilling on his first day in office and also canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.

BlackRock’s claim in its annual report that “low-income groups . . . may be vulnerable to disruption from climate change” is not worth the paper it is printed on. High gasoline prices hurt the poor the most, and those in cold climates sometimes freeze to death if they cannot live in heated homes, as happened recently in Ukraine.

There is nothing wrong with index funds. Larry Fink is not millions of people who hold index funds, though. Their interests vary widely and are not somehow lined up together, much less with his interests.

Fink and the CEOs at other companies that sell index funds shouldn’t vote trillions of dollars of index fund shareholdings at every meeting of shareholders in the world. They should save the planet in some other way.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Democrats want Biden to Declare National ‘Climate Emergency’ and Ban Oil Drilling on Federal Lands thumbnail

Democrats want Biden to Declare National ‘Climate Emergency’ and Ban Oil Drilling on Federal Lands

By The Geller Report

There is one common thread running through every Democrat policy – it’s hurt Americans, destroy America.

And as one commenter points out, “What oil subsidies are there? Sorry there aren’t billions or trillions of subsidies going to fossil fuel producers. The last time I looked the only subsidies I found were for research into green energy and to burn the fossil fuels cleaners. What people are calling subsidies, are normal businesses expenses. Deducting employee wages and production costs are not subsidies.”

House Dems want Biden to declare national ‘climate emergency’ and ban oil drilling on federal lands

Democrats will also call on Biden to end fossil fuel subsidies

By Andrew Mark Miller | Fox News March 16, 2022:

Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives are reportedly planning to publicly urge President Biden to ban oil drilling on federal lands amid record gas prices and a war in Ukraine that has disrupted oil markets.

According to a report from Politico,  the Congressional Progressive Caucus is planning to demand that Biden use his executive power to declare climate change an emergency and ban drilling on federal lands.

“Progressive Caucus member @JaredHuffman told me calling on Biden to declare a climate emergency is one of the ‘centerpiece’ actions to headline their EO plan,” Politico reporter Joshua Siegel tweeted Tuesday. “A draft of the plan I saw also calls for Biden to ban oil/gas drilling on public lands and end fossil fuel subsidies.”

Siegel added that House Democrats will also call on Biden to manufacture more heat pumps to “ease the strain in oil and gas markets that has been caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.” Some of those heat pumps would be donated to Europe, according to the House Progressives’ plan.

SCOOP: House liberals to urge Biden to declare climate emergency, ban drilling on federal lands as part of a sweeping executive order plan to be released by @USProgressives this week https://t.co/eoBijpcjQc

— Joshua Siegel (@SiegelScribe) March 15, 2022

The reported move drew immediate criticism on social media with many pointing out that gas prices have surged to record levels prompting Republicans to call for increased drilling to ease pain at the pump, not less.

A sticker of President Biden on a gas pump at an Exxon Station on March 9, 2022 in Lakewood, Colorado.  (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

“Dems want $10 gas,” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted.

“The Democrats need to wake up,” Republican Sen. Steve Daines tweeted. “We must unleash American energy.”

“And Democrats wonder why people blame them for high gas prices,” a Twitter account associated with the National Republican Congressional Committee tweeted.

Americans are experiencing the highest gas prices since the 2008 financial crisis, with the national gas price average reaching more than $4 per gallon.  (Getty Images)

“We need to focus on building critical infrastructure and increasing domestic production, not jeopardizing North American energy security,” President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers Jay Timmons tweeted. “Manufacturers oppose this attempt to potentially further disrupt domestic energy production and drive up prices.”

We need to focus on building critical infrastructure and increasing domestic production, not jeopardizing North American energy security. Manufacturers oppose this attempt to potentially further disrupt domestic energy production and drive up prices. https://t.co/4Kmfq21HJg

— Jay Timmons (@JayTimmonsNAM) March 15, 2022

The use of a “climate emergency” also raises constitutional concerns, as the nation eases out of emergency COVID restrictions imposed two years ago by governors and local authorities, which shut down businesses and destroyed millions of jobs nationwide.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.

The Biden administration has faced intense criticism in recent weeks for refusing to commit to increasing oil production in the United States as gas prices have surged roughly $1.50 per gallon since he took off in a crisis that has been exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

RELATED TWEET:

Gas prices are at record levels.

Doesn’t matter to House Democrats.

They want President Biden to declare a national ‘climate emergency’ and ban oil drilling on federal lands.

Maybe the dumbest idea of the year. https://t.co/XajhpZdzU0

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) March 16, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudis Consider Accepting Yuan Instead of Dollars for Chinese Oil Sales: Report

Netanyahu calls new Iran agreement ‘absurd’ and ‘dangerous’

Biden regime moving to remove Iran’s IRGC from terror blacklist

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Energy Expert and Congressional Candidate, Niki Conforti, on Biden’s Energy Policies thumbnail

Energy Expert and Congressional Candidate, Niki Conforti, on Biden’s Energy Policies

By Dr. Rich Swier

WHEATON, Ill. /PRNewswire/ — As a candidate for Illinois’ 6th Congressional District and an Energy Consultant, I feel compelled to speak out on the current state of energy in America, because America’s energy policy is a matter of National Security.

Being energy dependent as a country, as we are today, is not only costly to the American people, it weakens America’s position on the world stage.

By subverting our own energy suppliers, the Biden administration and their policies have put us at the mercy of foreign oil. It shifts the power structure away from America to countries like Iran, Venezuela, China – and Russia. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is just one adverse effect of this transfer of power.

Regaining energy independence will again tip the scales of the world power in America’s favor. America is the largest force of good in the world. A strong America will keep tyrant countries in check and benefit the whole world.

At home, being energy independent will lower the price of gas to fill our tanks and heat our homes. Lowering prices will temper inflation – which is at a 40 year high today.

As an off set to this, the current Administration is pushing renewable energy and electric vehicles. According to one executive order signed by Biden, the US is to achieve 100% carbon free electricity by 2030 and 100% electric vehicles by 2035.

This is not feasible. Renewable energy is not the sole solution for American energy as advocated by this administration.

One reason is the battery storage that is needed requires lithium, which is mostly produced in China. Beyond that, we would need to utilize much of today’s farmland and natural preserves for wind and solar fields to meet the demand for energy. Not to mention the problem with disposing of them and the costs involved.

Pushing renewables as the panacea to our energy needs will keep us dependent on foreign countries, like China, and lead to more problems down the road.

For More Information on the Conforti for Congress Campaign:

Contact: info@conforti4congress.com or call 630.296.4226 or visit www.conforti4congress.com

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

House GOP Demands Investigation into Russian Influence in U.S. Environmental Groups thumbnail

House GOP Demands Investigation into Russian Influence in U.S. Environmental Groups

By The Geller Report

Foreign actors have been funding the destruction of the American energy sector under the guise of green/clean climate hoax propaganda.

“Unlike the Russia hoax, Putin’s malign influence on our energy sector is real and deserves further investigation,” Jim Banks said.

As many Americans are seeking an increase in domestic energy output amid skyrocketing prices across the country, Republicans are calling on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to investigate if Russian money has financed American environmental groups that advocate against US fossil fuels.

The head of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has urged Yellen to launch an investigation into whether Russia has a secret funding scheme backing US green groups that have been a barrier to America’s bid for energy independence.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) spearheaded a letter Friday addressed to Yellen that cites a Washington Free Beacon report from 2015 that suggested that California-based Sea Change Foundation may be “a conduit for Russian oil interests in funneling money” to groups such as the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, and the Center for American Progress, according to a Fox News exclusive Saturday.

“Russia spent millions promoting anti-energy policies and politicians in the U.S.,” Banks declared in a press statement sent to Fox News Digital. “Now, thanks to Biden’s war on domestic energy, U.S. oil production has dropped 10%, pushing up prices and enriching and emboldening Putin before he invaded Ukraine.”

Banks said that unlike the “Russia hoax,” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “malign influence on our energy sector is real and deserves further investigation.”

As the world “descends into another global conflict,” Banks said in the latter it is “imperative that the Unites States remains free from foreign manipulation.”

The list of requests outlined in the letter asks the Treasury Department to partner with the Department of Justice in establishing a select committee to probe illicit Russian influence operations if Russian manipulation is confirmed.

Fox News reported that the Treasury Department did not respond to email requests for comment on whether it would investigate the GOP’s concerns regarding Russian interference in American anti-energy funding.

The letter from Banks mirrors a similar effort from Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who are demanding select environmental groups disclose ties to a non-governmental organization, which GOP members claim are being used by Putin to impact America’s energy production efforts.

House Republicans on the committee have pointed to the LCV, the NRDC, and the Sierra Club, which they’ve alleged have connections with the San Francisco-headquartered NGO environmental organization Sea Change Foundation. Sea Change is known as a major left-of-center foundation whose grant-making focuses on supporting environmentalist think tanks and advocacy groups.

In a March 10 letter sent to the aforementioned trio, congressional Republicans inquired about the funding the groups have received from the Sea Change Foundation since 2006 and prompted a disclosure of whether the groups “are aware of concerns that Sea Change may be a conduit for Russian funding.”

Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress said the allegations have been “thoroughly debunked,” pointing to a 2018 Inside Philanthropy article where Sea Change founders Nat Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons are quoted insisting they’ve received no outside funding and the foundation’s over $500 million in grants for climate and clean energy initiatives were based on family wealth.

“I wish to clarify that press reports speculating that Klein has received funding from outside sources are factually incorrect and have no basis. Neither Klein nor Sea Change Foundation has ever solicited or accepted contributions from non-family related sources,” Simons said in a statement include in the 2018 piece.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Center for American Progress called the recent moves by the GOP arriving amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict “a disgusting disinformation campaign by unpatriotic Republican extremists who have been actively cheering on Putin throughout the Trump years” and who are “now masking that disgrace with lies that have been thoroughly debunked.”

LCV, NRDC, and Sierra Club have also pushed back against the GOP’s claims in previous statements to Fox News Digital, with the NRDC calling the Republican Party’s allegations “false” and “rooted in a smear campaign orchestrated nearly a decade ago by fossil fuel interests and a right-wing think tank.”

“We receive no funding from the governments of Russia or China,” said NRDC director of strategic engagement Bob Deans, calling the GOP’s allegations “a distraction” then and now. “We answer to our independent leadership, and we don’t do the bidding of any government – foreign or otherwise – in our work to advocate for commonsense environmental protections in the public interest.”

LCV said the “story is completely false and has been put to rest for years.”

“We have no connections to Russia, or China, and have been an effective advocate for environmental protection for over 50 years,” the American environmental advocacy group stated. “These false and poorly researched allegations are rooted in a nearly 10-year-old right-wing think tank and fossil fuel industry-funded smear campaign that gets revived every few years to serve as a distraction.”

Sierra Club’s legislative director Melinda Pierce labeled the collusion allegation a “false conspiracy theory” that’s “invented by the same deceitful front groups paid to do polluters’ and big tobacco’s dirty work, has been repeatedly debunked over its nearly 10-year existence.” Pierce maintained that the Sierra Club has “no connections to Russia or China, and proudly fights for clean energy and climate action because this is what our planet requires, our families deserve, and what the overwhelming majority of Americans across the country demand.”

As the Russian government seeks to expand its political influence as an energy superpower, Moscow has gone to drastic lengths to ensure Europe’s reliance on Russian oil and gas. The dependence has made it difficult for both the US and its European allies to counter Russia’s military aggression in the region.

Among critics blasting President Joe Biden’s energy policies at home, the Republican Study Committee, the largest group of conservatives in the House, claims that the commander-in-chief has stifled domestic oil and gas production and led to the U.S. buying Russian oil to fund Putin’s war against Ukraine.

Earlier in the previous week, Biden announced a ban on Russian oil imports, firing back at opponents accusing the Biden administration of holding back domestic energy production. “I’m sick of this stuff,” Biden told a Democratic retreat in Philadelphia in reference to questions of inflation. “The American people think the reason for inflation is the government spending more money. Simply not true.”

Yellen said in a Thursday interview that Americans will likely experience “another year in which 12-month inflation numbers remain very uncomfortably high.”

She also said she believes the war in Ukraine is “exacerbating inflation” as the situation would likely play a part in keeping prices on the upward trend.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Fact-Checking 3 Biden Claims on Gas Prices thumbnail

Fact-Checking 3 Biden Claims on Gas Prices

By Fred Lucas

President Joe Biden has insisted that rising gas prices are not a result of his administration’s policies.

This week, he announced the United States would ban oil imports from Russia because of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine.

Biden also has suggested that U.S. oil companies are responsible in part for the higher prices due to insufficient domestic production.

Here’s a look at three major claims about gas prices from the president:

1. ‘9,000 Permits to Drill’

When he announced the ban on Russian oil imports, Biden said the rise in gas prices in previous months was not the fault of his administration’s policies. 

Biden said that only 10% of production takes place on federal lands, and the oil companies have “millions of acres leased” from the federal government.

“They have 9,000 permits to drill now. They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year,” the president said. “They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved. So, let me be clear. Let me be clear: They are not using them for production now. That’s their decision.”

According to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, there were 9,173 approved permits at the end of 2021.

But it’s not that simple, said Katie Tubb, senior policy analyst for energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation.

“The 9,000 leases [statistic] is incredibly misleading and shows the administration doesn’t understand their own processes for managing energy production on federal lands and waters,” Tubb told The Daily Signal in an email. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation)

“Bidding for and winning a lease on federal lands and waters is the beginning of a long process to actually produce energy. After leasing, there’s exploration, environmental reviews, permitting, drilling a well, and putting in infrastructure … to actually access oil/natural gas.”

That can take years because of litigation and environmental reviews, according to the Western Energy Alliance, which is defending 2,200 leases for development from lawsuits brought by environmental groups. The federal government also conducts an analysis mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Some leases won’t be developed if the company determines the quantities of oil and natural gas are insufficient.

Further, relying on the 9,000 leases line is “misdirection” from the White House, according to The Wall Street Journal editorial board. That’s because it’s not enough to simply have permits. 

It takes about 140 days for the federal government to approve a drilling permit, according to the newspaper. Additionally, the Journal said, regulations have made it tough for companies to get permits to contract rigs for operating on federal lands.

Also, the Department of Interior’s five-year leasing program for the Gulf of Mexico expires in June, and the Biden administration hasn’t proposed a new plan, according to the Journal. 

In the past week, the Biden administration proposed new climate standards that would regulate conventional trucks and declined to appeal a federal court decision that vacated the only leases it sold last year on federal lands or waters.

2. Keystone ‘Nothing to Do’ With Oil Supply

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was dismissive of questions regarding the Keystone XL pipeline, which Biden canceled on his first day in office.

“The Keystone was not an oil field. It’s a pipeline,” Psaki said this week. “Also, the oil is continuing to flow in, just through other means. So, it actually would have nothing to do with the current supply imbalance.”

The pipeline transporting oil from Canada into the United States would not immediately boost supply. But as a futures market, oil prices are based in part on anticipated supply.

Boosting the long-term outlook would likely affect prices, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, an app that directs motorists to the best gasoline deals, told Politico.

“The president should immediately rescind his policies to block the Keystone XL pipeline, and let the market decide,” De Haan said, adding:

He should also cease anti-oil-and-gas stances and let markets decide. That won’t help much now, but in the long run, it will reverse his damaging decisions. And the nation should support growing our energy independence, to help offset future situations like this.

Also, in the long term, the Keystone XL pipeline—stretching from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska—would carry about 830,00 barrels of oil per day into the United States from an ally. 

That would easily supplant the 800,000 barrels per day the United States imported from Russia during 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Future expectations get factored into commodity prices and futures, Tubb said.

“Approving the pipeline now would be good longer-term policy, and would also send a strong signal to markets (investors, financiers, energy companies) that energy production and infrastructure are welcome,” Tubb said, noting:

We saw just this week how powerful those signals can be. The price per barrel of oil increased following Biden’s ban on Russian imports, then fell when the political ramifications were more muted than feared (and the EU didn’t join in the ban) and when the UAE mildly broke ranks and encouraged OPEC to consider increasing production.

3. ‘Putin’s Price Hike’

The Labor Department’s new numbers, released Thursday, show consumer prices rose 0.8% over the past month and almost 8% over the past year. Gas is a big part of that, and Biden said it’s the fault of Putin.

“Today’s inflation report is a reminder that Americans’ budgets are being stretched by price increases, and families are starting to feel the impacts of Putin’s price hike,” Biden said. “A large contributor to inflation this month was an increase in gas and energy prices as markets reacted to Putin’s aggressive actions.”

The national average price for regular unleaded gas is $4.31 per gallon, according to AAA. That’s up from $3.47 a month ago before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A year ago, when Biden had been president for less than two months, the national average price was $2.81.  

Putin is clearly a factor, but inflation and rising gas prices have been a problem for some time, Tubb said.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is certainly impacting oil markets and creating a lot of uncertainty about future supply/scarcity that are impacting price, but to stop there is misleading,” she said, adding:

President Biden has consistently told energy companies to increase supply today, but don’t make any long-term investments. What company wants to risk millions to billions of dollars in employees, equipment, infrastructure if they’re not going to get a return?

Although Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm called for more energy output, Tubb noted the various federal agencies targeting the oil industry with regulations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Labor Department, and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.

Amos Hochstein, an energy adviser at the State Department, said the “conflict has made it clear to us that we should double down and triple down on the transition [to green energy], and to make it broader, bigger, and faster.”

Biden noted in remarks this week: “Loosening environmental regulations or pulling back clean energy investment won’t—let me explain—won’t—will not lower energy prices for families.”

He added: “Transforming our economy to run on electric vehicles powered by clean energy with tax credits to help American families winterize their homes and use less energy, that will—that will help.”

However, the Energy Information Administration finds no scenario under which global demand for oil and natural gas would not increase through at least 2050.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Biden and the Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s Green Energy Agenda thumbnail

Biden and the Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s Green Energy Agenda

By Robert Heller

Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (AOC) is neither a climatologist or scientist. Before she was elected to Congress she was a bartender.

Nothing wrong with being a bartender but creating a program called ‘The Green New Deal’ is above her pay level.

Nevertheless the Biden White House is in the process of implementing AOC’s Green New Deal which was voted down by the Senate in 1979 by a vote of 57 Republicans against, and 47 Democrats voting present.

Not one Democrat Senator voted for it.

Can you think of any country other than the U.S. under Biden’s management that would vote to give up its energy independence?

Can’t think of one, because it never happened before.

Shortly after being sworn in as president Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline. While electioneering he promised to do so and promised to put the fossil fuel business out of business. Few people understood by going to war against oil and gas that the U.S. would no longer be energy independent; or that U.S. security would be compromised plus high inflation would follow.

Everything we eat, drink or use is affected by the price of energy.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, gasoline prices increased by about a dollar a gallon and natural gas rose as well. Biden’s claim that inflation is a result of the Russian-Ukraine war doesn’t wash.

We can thank AOC and the commitments Biden probably made to her to get her and the ‘Squad’  to support  his election has resulted in our current state of affairs.

The White House has been pleading with Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to make up for Biden’s monumental error. How does this help climate change considering the U.S. produces cleaner energy than either of these countries?

It is high time for Congress and the Senate to take action to make the U.S. energy independent again and end Biden’s war on energy and the American people.

©Robert Heller. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Psaki Face-Plants When Asked if Biden Owns an Electric Car.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.