Connect with us

Energy

Biden Talks Tough About NATO, but His Energy Policies Tell Different Story

Published

7 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Steven Bucci of the Daily Signal

That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become. You can’t really have both.

President Joe Biden, host of the 75th anniversary NATO Summit in Washington that ends Thursday, last week claimed to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that he “put NATO together.”

Trying to find a charitable spin on this claim, let’s assume Biden means that he helped NATO stand stronger against Russian President Vladimir Putin in the crisis over Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Biden certainly didn’t put together NATO, founded in 1949, regardless of his recollection. In that context, it makes one wonder about the purpose and intent behind Biden’s energy policies and their implications for our NATO allies.

The president’s words imply one thing, but his actions are exactly the opposite. At this week’s NATO Summit, America’s allies should have denounced Biden’s energy policies for benefiting Russia.

For example, if we investigate the Biden administration’s policies on liquefied natural gas, we find that rather than supporting NATO against Russia, they clearly enable Russia and disadvantage our allies. Biden’s imposition this year of an export moratorium on liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has hampered U.S. companies that are trying to aid our allies by weaning them off dependence on Russian natural gas.

You can debate Biden’s words (and his faulty memory), but his policies are simply dead wrong.

First, let’s look at Biden’s disastrous pause in exports of liquefied natural gas. The Energy Department has stopped new permits for such exports to Europe and Asia, which has led to price volatility and no assurance of reliable sources for our allies to meet their energy demands.

federal judge in Louisiana recently reversed Biden’s moratorium. That action could eventually help allow private sector companies in the U.S. to support our allies in Europe and Ukraine.

One example of note includes Ukraine and Venture Global, an American company that wants to come to the rescue by supplying Ukraine and Europe with liquefied natural gas to help them reduce their dependence on Russian gas. Biden’s continued pause had stood in the way.

The judge in Louisiana noted that the Biden administration’s suspension of LNG exports conflicts with settled law such as the Natural Gas Act, which directs the Energy Department to “ensure expeditious completion” of permit reviews.

Biden’s LNG export moratorium also violates the Administrative Procedure Act, since there never was a congressional direction that the Energy Department impose it.

All of this is a clear conflict (again) between responsible policy and the extremist green faction of Biden’s Democratic Party and his administration. That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become.

You can’t really have both. And yet, ironically, new evidence demonstrates that U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas represent a climate-conscious solution. A recent Berkeley Research Group report found that these exports result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than does natural gas supplied by competing countries, and much lower emissions compared with coal.

The second example of this dangerous conflict is Biden’s support for a Middle East pipeline owned by the Russians. Here at least the president’s position seems to be nuanced, since a greater supply of oil could help lower energy prices.

Biden’s State Department has strongly supported restarting an oil pipeline that has been offline because of a political dispute among Kurdistan, Iran, and Turkey. Unfortunately, the pipeline is 60% owned by Rosneft, an oil company that itself is owned by the Russian state.

Oh, and a point I skipped above: We shouldn’t be helping Iran or a hostile Turkey to control or influence significant energy in any way. All this defies logic.

It’s obvious that Biden wants cheaper energy. Every president does in an election year. That said, why is the State Department supporting reopening a Middle East pipeline that’s majority-owned by the Kremlin after the Biden administration canceled infrastructure projects here at home?

The administration’s priorities are entirely misplaced.

There is a path forward. It involves reinforcing American leadership in domestic energy production.  Instead of playing into the hands of our adversaries (Russia, Iran, and Venezuela), the Biden administration needs to change course and open more access to American oil and gas production.

That starts by permanently ending the suspension on LNG exports, ending the moratorium of oil and gas exploration on federal lands, ending unprecedented restrictions on offshore oil and gas leasing, ceasing resistance to the Canadian Enbridge Pipeline 5, and restarting canceled pipeline projects such as Keystone XL.

America’s energy resources are the envy of the world and should be leveraged to protect our citizens and our allies.

U.S. energy exports strengthen our competitive edge against China, Russia, and other hostile regimes. They also produce high-paying jobs at home and lessen dependence on any foreign source.

If America really wants to help Ukraine and be a leader in NATO, this is a path that will be consistent, effective, and inexpensive compared with direct financial or material support.

The green energy activists will hate it, but simply put: They’re wrong.

Steven Bucci is a visiting fellow in the Phillip N. Truluck Center for Leadership Development.

Originally published by The Daily Signal. Republished with permission.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Affordable Energy: Everything you need to know about energy and the environment

Published on

The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment

Scott Tinker

The world faces two important and interrelated challenges. Affordable and reliable energy for all, and protecting the environment. The energy-environment challenge is not simple, but it is solvable if we understand and address the complex fabric of energy security, scale of energy demand, physics of energy density, distribution of energy resources, interconnectedness of the land, air, water and atmosphere, and the extreme disparity in global wealth and economic health. The truth is that there are no good and bad, clean and dirty, renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. They all have benefits, and they all have challenges. Climate change is an important issue, but it is not the only environmental issue. Solar and wind are important low carbon solutions, but they are only part of the solution. We must put our best minds to the task of addressing the dual challenge, working together to better the world.

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa must listen to the West

Published on

If Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t listen to the West, it’s going to cost Canada.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are demanding that Ottawa stop stomping on their provinces’ natural resource production.

Smith is telling Carney to scrap the no more pipelines law, Bill C-69, lift the cap on Alberta’s energy and cancel the looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Moe is stepping in sync with Smith, listing Saskatchewan’s demands in a letter, calling for changes to the no more pipelines law, saying, “there are a few policies that are going to have to go.”

Moe is also taking aim at the industrial carbon tax saying “the tax can’t be charged on the electricity for Saskatchewan families.”

The new prime minister says he’s listening.

“I intend to govern for all Canadians,” said Carney in his election victory speech.

If that’s true, Carney must heed the demands of Smith and Moe, because Ottawa’s anti-West policies are damaging the economy and costing taxpayers a truckload of money.

How much?

Ottawa’s cap on oil and gas emissions – which creates a cap on production – will cost the Canadian economy about $20.5 billion and slash 40,000 jobs by 2032, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canada has also seen nearly $670 billion in natural resources projects suspended or cancelled, since 2015.

To put that kind of money into perspective: $670 billion would pay for the salaries of hundreds of thousands of paramedics and police officers, for a decade.

That’s the equivalent to the value of more than one million houses in Alberta or almost two million homes in Saskatchewan.

That kind of money is worth the entire income tax bills for the populations of AlbertaSaskatchewan and Manitoba for about 10 years.

That’s just the lost money from natural resources.

Carney’s looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles also has a huge price tag.

Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.

If Carney is serious about boosting the economy and governing for all Canadians, getting the government out of the way of natural resource projects and scrapping the expensive plan to stop people from buying new gas and diesel vehicles is a good first step.

The West has been firmly asking for Ottawa to mind its own business for years.

Cancelling the industrial carbon tax is another way for Carney to show that he’s serious about growing the economy and governing for all Canadians.

On the same day Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, the Saskatchewan government dropped its industrial carbon tax down to zero.

“By eliminating industrial carbon costs which are often passed directly on to consumers – the province is acting to protect affordability and economic competitiveness,” said the Saskatchewan government’s news release.

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax is now frozen. Increasing the tax above its current rate would make Alberta “exceptionally uncompetitive,” according to Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz.

Business groups in both provinces lauded each premier, saying it would make their industries more competitive and help bring down costs.

When Ottawa forces businesses like fuel refineries or fertilizer plants to pay the carbon tax, they pass on those costs on to taxpayers when they heat their homes, fill up their cars and buy groceries.

If companies are forced to cut production or leave the country because of the industrial carbon tax and policies like the energy cap, it’s regular Albertans and Saskatchewanians who are hurt the most through job losses.

If Carney intends to govern for all Canadians he needs to listen to Smith and Moe and scrap these policies that are set to cost taxpayers billions and slash tens of thousands of jobs.

Kris Sims is Alberta Director and Gage Haubrich is Prairie Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X