Energy
8 ways the Biden / Harris government made gasoline prices higher
From Energy Talking Points
By Alex Epstein |
Any politician who supports the “net zero” agenda is working to make gasoline prices much higher
This is Part 1 of a 4 part feature where I cover 4 of the top energy issues being discussed this summer
- Every politician will claim this summer that they’re working to make gasoline prices lower, because they know that’s what voters want to hear.
But the many politicians that support “net zero by 2050” are working to make gasoline prices higher.
- For the US to become anywhere near “net zero by 2050,” gasoline use needs to be virtually eliminated.¹
- Since Americans left to their own free will choose to use a lot of gasoline, the only way for “net zero” politicians to eliminate gasoline is to make it unaffordable or illegal.
Low gasoline prices are totally incompatible with “net zero.”
- The Biden-Harris administration knows that all fossil fuels, including gasoline, need to be far more expensive for them to pursue “net zero.” That’s why the EPA set a rising “social cost of carbon” starting at $190/ton—the equivalent of adding $1.50 a gallon to gasoline prices!²
- From Day 1, President Biden has openly supported the destruction of the fossil fuel industry, from his 2019 campaign promise of “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel” to his 2021 executive order declaring that America will be “net zero emissions economy-wide” by 2050.³
- Kamala Harris has, unfortunately, been even more supportive of the “net zero” agenda and therefore higher gasoline prices. In 2020 she supported a fracking ban, which would have destroyed 60% of US oil production. And she cosponsored the fossil fuel-destroying Green New Deal.⁴
- Of course, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, like all politicians, claim to be for lower gasoline prices. But because their real priority is the “net zero” agenda, in practice they are doing everything they can to raise prices.
-
Here are 8 specific actions they’ve taken.
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #1
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by taking a “whole-of-government” approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
. This entails reducing oil investment, production, refining, and transport, all of which serves to increase gas prices.⁵
 |
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #2
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by expanding the anti-fossil-fuel ESG divestment movement
. ESG contributed to a 50% decline in oil and gas exploration investments from 2011-2021, resulting in artificially higher prices. Biden is making it worse.The ESG movement is anti-energy, anti-development, and anti-America
·January 6, 2022
ESG poses as a moral and financially savvy movement. In reality it is an immoral and financially ruinous movement that is destroying the free world’s ability to produce low-cost, reliable energy. This prevents poor countries from developing and threatens America’s security. Read full story - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #3
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices via “climate disclosure rules,”
an oil and gas investment-slashing measure that coerces companies into spouting anti-fossil-fuel propaganda and committing to anti-fossil-fuel plans—plans that will raise gas prices.The “climate disclosure” fraud
·Mar 16
Congress won’t support Biden’s anti-fossil-fuel agenda. Read full story
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #4
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by issuing a moratorium on oil and gas leases on federal lands, stunting oil and gas production and investment
. When it’s harder to produce and invest in oil, gasoline gets more expensive.⁶
 |
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #5
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by hiking the royalty rate for new oil leases by 50%
. This is money the government gets from the industry on top of taxes. And it discourages oil investments, meaning less production meaning higher gas prices.⁷
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #6
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by restricting oil and gas leasing on nearly 50% of Alaska’s vast petroleum reserve
. This is a crippling blow to Alaska’s oil and gas industry. Less Alaskan oil means higher gas prices.⁸
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #7
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by threatening to stop oil and gas mergers
. Mergers, which increase efficiency, benefit domestic production and lower prices. Blocking mergers raises oil prices long-term, which means higher gas prices.Why government should leave oil and gas mergers alone
·Jun 3
Myth: Oil and gas mergers are bad for America because they make oil more expensive. Read full story - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #8
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline
. This prevented Canada from using its vast oil deposits to their full potential—meaning lower global supply and higher prices for oil and gasoline.⁹
- Joe Biden should level with the American people and make clear that his agenda is to increase gasoline prices—much like Obama’s infamous admission that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his energy plan.
Or he should apologize and embrace energy freedom.¹⁰
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Grande Prairie. Getty Images photo
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Federal cash grab driving costs for local governments, driving up property taxes
New data shows the painful economic impact of the federal carbon tax on municipalities.
Municipalities in Alberta paid out more than $37 million in federal carbon taxes in 2023, based on a recent survey commissioned by Alberta Municipal Affairs, with data provided to the Canadian Energy Centre.
About $760,000 of that came from the City of Grande Prairie. In a statement, Mayor Jackie Clayton said “if the carbon tax were removed, City property taxes could be reduced by 0.6 per cent, providing direct financial relief to residents and businesses in Grande Prairie.”
Conducted in October, the survey asked municipal districts, towns and cities in Alberta to disclose the amount of carbon tax paid out for the heating and electrifying of municipal assets and fuel for fleet vehicles.
With these funds, Alberta municipalities could have hired 7,789 high school students at $15 per hour last year with the amount paid to Ottawa.
The cost on municipalities includes:
Lloydminster: $422,248
Calgary: $1,230,300 (estimate)
Medicine Hat: $876,237
Lethbridge: $1,398,000 (estimate)
Grande Prairie: $757,562
Crowsnest Pass: $71,100
Red Deer: $1,495,945
Bonnyville: $19,484
Hinton: $66,829
Several municipalities also noted substantial indirect costs from the carbon tax, including higher rates from vendors that serve the municipality – like gravel truck drivers and road repair providers – passing increased fuel prices onto local governments.
The rising price for materials and goods like traffic lights, steel, lumber and cement, due to higher transportation costs are also hitting the bottom line for local governments.
The City of Grande Prairie paid out $89 million in goods and services in 2023, and the indirect costs of the carbon tax “have had an inflationary impact on those expenses” in addition to the direct costs of the tax.
In her press conference announcing Alberta’s challenge to the federal carbon tax on Oct. 29, 2024, Premier Danielle Smith addressed the pressures the carbon tax places on municipal bottom lines.
“In 2023 alone, the City of Calgary could have hired an additional 112 police officers or firefighters for the amount they sent to Ottawa for the carbon tax,” she said.
In a statement issued on Oct. 7, 2024, Ontario Conservative MP Ryan Williams, shadow minister for international trade, said this issue is nationwide.
“In Belleville, Ontario, the impact of the carbon tax is particularly notable. The city faces an extra $410,000 annually in costs – a burden that directly translates to an increase of 0.37 per cent on residents’ property tax bills.”
There is no rebate yet provided on retail carbon pricing for towns, cities and counties.
In October, the council in Belleville passed a motion asking the federal government to return in full all carbon taxes paid by municipalities in Canada.
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).
At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”
Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.
So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?
The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.
According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.
Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.
And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.
This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).
Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.
Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.
The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.
As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.
Authors:
‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App
Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade
Colonel Macgregor warns of world war, urges Trump to ‘tell the truth’ about Ukraine, Israel
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
conflict2 days ago
Colonel Macgregor warns of world war, urges Trump to ‘tell the truth’ about Ukraine, Israel
-
Business1 day agoTaxpayer watchdog calls Trudeau ‘out of touch’ for prioritizing ‘climate change’ while families struggle
-
Daily Caller1 day agoChinese Agents Can Now Access Every American’s Phone Calls And Texts, GOP Senator Warns
-
conflict1 day agoThe West Is Playing With Fire In Ukraine
-
Environment23 hours agoClimate Scientists declare the climate “emergency” is at an end
-
conflict2 days agoRussia has sent the West a message: Don’t provoke us into escalating the war
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoTucker Carlson: Longtime source says porn sites controlled by intelligence agencies for blackmail
-
illegal immigration2 days agoTexas offers land for use for Trump deportations