Uncategorized
Biden Admin Energy Policies Putting Americans Further At Risk In Potential War With China, Analysis Finds
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By NICK POPE
The environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) movement is undermining U.S. energy security by artificially sapping demand for new refining projects, even though demand for fossil fuels and petrochemicals remains strong and could grow stronger in the event of a prolonged military conflict.
America’s energy systems and infrastructure may be currently unprepared to sustain a wartime economy in the event of a hot war with China, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s green policies, according to a new report published by the Heritage Foundation.
The report, published Thursday and titled “Chinese Handcuffs: Don’t Allow the U.S. Military to Be Hooked on Green Energy from China,” examines the state of American energy security and resilience in a potential war with China, taking stock of markets at home and overseas. The paper emphasizes the need for American policymakers to get ahead of any possible conflict with China by ensuring that the U.S. military has a robust and secure supply of traditional energy available, rolling back certain environmental regulations and targets pushed by the Biden administration, building more strategic energy infrastructure and bolstering existing commercial relationships with friendly countries, all of which may heighten deterrence with an adversarial country considering escalation with the U.S.
“Due to a heavy reliance on foreign sources, poor policy choices, and constraints on the transport of fuels, the U.S. military could be vulnerable,” the report states. “The risk is for localized fuel shortages, global supply disruptions, and Chinese economic coercion during a conflict driving significantly increased energy demands.”
Brent Sadler, the report’s author and a 26-year U.S. Navy veteran who now works as a senior research fellow for naval warfare and advanced technology at the Heritage Foundation, further emphasized that while steps to heighten America’s energy security will be expensive and require political will, they are necessary measures to ensure that the U.S. can transition to and sustain a wartime footing against near-peer competitors like China. Numerous pundits and ex-military personnel have suggested that China is getting ready for a war to start in the coming years, whether in Taiwan or in the South China Sea.
“America’s energy network is brittle in some regions and unable to adjust easily to surges in demand,” the report states. “In wartime, the consequences of such weaknesses could be an inability to sustain military combat operations and the inability of wartime industry to keep America safe. On the other hand, readiness for this possibility could be a significant advantage, enabling the United States to deter China by confronting it with a foe that is able to wage a prolonged war backed by a resilient wartime economy.”
The insistence of some federal and state officials — particularly Democrats — on transitioning the American economy to reliance on green energy poses a major problem for American security, the report asserts. Additionally, the environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) movement is undermining U.S. energy security by artificially sapping demand for new refining projects, even though demand for fossil fuels and petrochemicals remains strong and could grow stronger in the event of a prolonged military conflict.
The Biden administration has pledged to invest at least $1 trillion over the next decade to advance its massive climate agenda, and federal agencies have pushed stringent regulations and taken other bureaucratic actions targeting the broader American energy sector. The administration is also looking to make the military a more climate-friendly organization, including by seeking to have the Department of Defense (DOD) transition its non-tactical vehicle fleet to electric models by 2030.
Additionally, the supply chains for many of the green energy technologies favored by the Biden administration are dominated by China, the report points out. Numerous energy and national security experts have highlighted that retiring existing energy infrastructure in favor of products reliant on China-dominated supply chains is likely to make America more vulnerable, particularly in the event of an acute geopolitical crisis.
One specific element of the American energy system in need of change is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a de facto emergency supply of oil stored in underground caverns along the Gulf Coast established in the 1970s amid an energy crisis, according to the report. Sadler recommends that policymakers begin to treat the SPR as a key tool for the military to use in the event of war, given China’s rise, as well as improving energy transportation infrastructure to more easily get SPR supply to coastal regions where the military can use it expediently.
The Biden administration has used the SPR as a tool for manipulating markets, as officials decided to release approximately 180 million barrels from the stockpile to bring down spiking energy costs ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Several million of those barrels were sold to Chinese entities, and the administration has subsequently floated the possibility of again tapping into the SPR ahead of the pivotal 2024 elections while the reserve remains at its lowest levels in about 40 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Stadler calculated that the SPR’s current inventory would need a boost of about 55 million more barrels in order to single-handedly supply the amount of oil that U.S. forces used in Operation Desert Storm in 1990.
Deliberate policy choices and infrastructure upgrades are needed to make sure that the U.S. is able to effectively fight China in a prolonged conflict, Stadler contends in the report. Making these adjustments would help to provide an advantage over potential adversaries like China that rely on energy imports, according to Stadler.
Beyond SPR-related adjustments, the report also identifies an urgent need to unleash refiners and build out more pipeline capacity in light of China’s possible ability to launch highly disruptive cyber attacks against key pipeline and shipping infrastructure.
Additionally, Stadler emphasizes the importance of strengthening relationships with energy-rich countries that could be key sources of energy for American forces around the world in the event of a hot war with China. While several memoranda of understanding are in place with such countries, Stadler suggests that U.S. officials should move to elevate these agreements to treaty status to enhance America’s standing with those countries and decrease China’s ability to pressure third-party countries against assisting American forces.
“This is especially true for scenarios in which a major war disrupts overseas energy markets and normal shipping methods. Under such conditions, the U.S. will need more diverse and reliable overseas suppliers for military operations,” the report states. “Given the global impact that a war with China would have, the U.S. urgently needs to ensure that it has enough fuel stocks and crude oil to allow it time to adjust to a wartime footing.”
Neither the White House nor DOD responded immediately to requests for comment.
Uncategorized
Mortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal
Much of the commentary on the Carney-Smith pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has focused on the question of whether or not the proposed pipeline will ever get built.
That’s an important topic, and one that deserves to be examined — whether, as John Robson, of the indispensable Climate Discussion Nexus, predicted, “opposition from the government of British Columbia and aboriginal groups, and the skittishness of the oil industry about investing in a major project in Canada, will kill [the pipeline] dead.”
But I’m going to ask a different question: Would it even be worth building this pipeline on the terms Ottawa is forcing on Alberta? If you squint, the MOU might look like a victory on paper. Ottawa suspends the oil and gas emissions cap, proposes an exemption from the West Coast tanker ban, and lays the groundwork for the construction of one (though only one) million barrels per day pipeline to tidewater.
But in return, Alberta must agree to jack its industrial carbon tax up from $95 to $130 per tonne at a minimum, while committing to tens of billions in carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) spending, including the $16.5 billion Pathways Alliance megaproject.
Here’s the part none of the project’s boosters seem to want to mention: those concessions will make the production of Canadian hydrocarbon energy significantly more expensive.
As economist Jack Mintz has explained, the industrial carbon tax hike alone adds more than $5 USD per barrel of Canadian crude to marginal production costs — the costs that matter when companies decide whether to invest in new production. Layer on the CCUS requirements and you get another $1.20–$3 per barrel for mining projects and $3.60–$4.80 for steam-assisted operations.
While roughly 62% of the capital cost of carbon capture is to be covered by taxpayers — another problem with the agreement, I might add — the remainder is covered by the industry, and thus, eventually, consumers.
Total damage: somewhere between $6.40 and $10 US per barrel. Perhaps more.
“Ultimately,” the Fraser Institute explains, “this will widen the competitiveness gap between Alberta and many other jurisdictions, such as the United States,” that don’t hamstring their energy producers in this way. Producers in Texas and Oklahoma, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Russia, aren’t paying a dime in equivalent carbon taxes or mandatory CCUS bills. They’re not so masochistic.
American refiners won’t pay a “low-carbon premium” for Canadian crude. They’ll just buy cheaper oil or ramp up their own production.
In short, a shiny new pipe is worthless if the extra cost makes barrels of our oil so expensive that no one will want them.
And that doesn’t even touch on the problem for the domestic market, where the higher production cost will be passed onto Canadian consumers in the form of higher gas and diesel prices, home heating costs, and an elevated cost of everyday goods, like groceries.
Either way, Canadians lose.
So, concludes Mintz, “The big problem for a new oil pipeline isn’t getting BC or First Nation acceptance. Rather, it’s smothering the industry’s competitiveness by layering on carbon pricing and decarbonization costs that most competing countries don’t charge.” Meanwhile, lurking underneath this whole discussion is the MOU’s ultimate Achilles’ heel: net-zero.
The MOU proudly declares that “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving Net-Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” As Vaclav Smil documented in a recent study of Net-Zero, global fossil-fuel use has risen 55% since the 1997 Kyoto agreement, despite trillions spent on subsidies and regulations. Fossil fuels still supply 82% of the world’s energy.
With these numbers in mind, the idea that Canada can unilaterally decarbonize its largest export industry in 25 years is delusional.
This deal doesn’t secure Canada’s energy future. It mortgages it. We are trading market access for self-inflicted costs that will shrink production, scare off capital, and cut into the profitability of any potential pipeline. Affordable energy, good jobs, and national prosperity shouldn’t require surrendering to net-zero fantasy.If Ottawa were serious about making Canada an energy superpower, it would scrap the anti-resource laws outright, kill the carbon taxes, and let our world-class oil and gas compete on merit. Instead, we’ve been handed a backroom MOU which, for the cost of one pipeline — if that! — guarantees higher costs today and smothers the industry that is the backbone of the Canadian economy.
This MOU isn’t salvation. It’s a prescription for Canadian decline.
The cost of the bureaucracy increased by $6 billion last year, according to newly released numbers in Public Accounts disclosures. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to immediately shrink the bureaucracy.
“The Public Accounts show the cost of the federal bureaucracy is out of control,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, Carney needs to take urgent action to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.”
The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $71.4 billion in 2024-25, according to the Public Accounts. The cost of the federal bureaucracy increased by $6 billion, or more than nine per cent, over the last year.
The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $39.6 billion in 2015-16, according to the Public Accounts. That means the cost of the federal bureaucracy increased 80 per cent over the last 10 years. The government added 99,000 extra bureaucrats between 2015-16 and 2024-25.
Half of Canadians say federal services have gotten worse since 2016, despite the massive increase in the federal bureaucracy, according to a Leger poll.
Not only has the size of the bureaucracy increased, the cost of consultants, contractors and outsourcing has increased as well. The government spent $23.1 billion on “professional and special services” last year, according to the Public Accounts. That’s an 11 per cent increase over the previous year. The government’s spending on professional and special services more than doubled since 2015-16.
“Taxpayers should not be paying way more for in-house government bureaucrats and way more for outside help,” Terrazzano said. “Mere promises to find minor savings in the federal bureaucracy won’t fix Canada’s finances.
“Taxpayers need Carney to take urgent action and significantly cut the number of bureaucrats now.”
Table: Cost of bureaucracy and professional and special services, Public Accounts
| Year | Bureaucracy | Professional and special services |
|
$71,369,677,000 |
$23,145,218,000 |
|
|
$65,326,643,000 |
$20,771,477,000 |
|
|
$56,467,851,000 |
$18,591,373,000 |
|
|
$60,676,243,000 |
$17,511,078,000 |
|
|
$52,984,272,000 |
$14,720,455,000 |
|
|
$46,349,166,000 |
$13,334,341,000 |
|
|
$46,131,628,000 |
$12,940,395,000 |
|
|
$45,262,821,000 |
$12,950,619,000 |
|
|
$38,909,594,000 |
$11,910,257,000 |
|
|
$39,616,656,000 |
$11,082,974,000 |
Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam
Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG
Disclosures reveal Minnesota politician’s husband’s companies surged thousands-fold amid Somali fraud crisis
What Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?
-
Business2 days ago
Disclosures reveal Minnesota politician’s husband’s companies surged thousands-fold amid Somali fraud crisis
-
Alberta2 days agoThe Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025
-
Business2 days agoResurfaced Video Shows How Somali Scammers Used Day Care Centers To Scam State
-
Business1 day agoThe Real Reason Canada’s Health Care System Is Failing
-
Business2 days agoMinneapolis day care filmed empty suddenly fills with kids
-
Business2 days agoOttawa Is Still Dodging The China Interference Threat
-
Opinion16 hours agoGlobally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history
-
Business24 hours ago
Federal funds FROZEN after massive fraud uncovered: Trump cuts off Minnesota child care money