From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Unlike his predecessors, President Donald Trump always seems to have energy and its impacts to the lives of all Americans at the top of his mind. Following his stemwinding acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last August, I was able to highlight the more than 1,000 words specific to energy included in it.

The president’s high prioritization of energy and energy policy came into sharp focus again Tuesday night in his speech to a joint session of congress. None of what he said about energy received applause from the Democrats present in the House Chamber, but that was no surprise. Trump noted early in the speech there was literally nothing he could say to evoke such a response from minority party.

But ordinary Americans struggling to make ends meet after years of Biden/Harris-era inflation likely had a different reaction given that Trump’s focus on energy policy both in the speech and in action across the first six weeks of his second presidency has been focused on reforms designed to cut energy costs for everyone.

“Upon taking office, I imposed an immediate freeze on all federal hiring, a freeze on all new federal regulations,” Trump said early on. “I terminated the ridiculous green new scam. I withdrew from the unfair Paris Climate Accord, which was costing us trillions of dollars that other countries were not paying … We ended all of Biden’s environmental restrictions that were making our country far less safe and totally unaffordable. And importantly, we ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Mr. Trump concluded that portion of the speech by pointing to his Day 1 executive order that all federal agencies must eliminate 10 old regulations for every new regulation they wish to implement. Again, this focused effort to tear down the entrenched bureaucratic state is designed boost the economy, create thousands of high paying jobs and lower prices by cutting the cost of regulatory overhead for which consumers inevitably pay.

Congress is also doing its part, having already eliminated some of the costliest Biden regulations via the Congressional Review Act.

Every action described there will, if made permanent, boost the economy and reduce the cost of energy for all Americans. Yes, even for the Democrats, some of whom audibly hissed during that portion of the speech. Amazing.

Where energy minerals are concerned, President Trump reiterated his desire to establish a U.S. presence in or control of Greenland and its enormous known reserves of rare earth minerals and other critical energy minerals.

“I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland,” Trump said. “We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.”

Trump said Greenland is not just about energy, noting its control is also crucial for national security and even international security. “One way or the other, we’re going to get it,” he said, adding, “We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.”

The president also spoke about his administration’s efforts to re-establish U.S. control over the Panama Canal, noting that “a large American company (which turns out to be a BlackRock-led consortium) announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals. The Panama Canal was built by Americans for Americans, not for others. But others could use it.”

Preserving the free flow of shipping through the Panama Canal during times of peace and potential war is critical to U.S. energy security given that crude oil is the most internationally traded commodity and LNG is rapidly rising on that list. The maintenance of strong energy security is among the most crucial aspects of ensuring strong national security and economic prosperity.

In reference to the amazing progress his administration has made in securing the southern border without any help from congress, Trump mocked Biden-era claims by the “media and our friends in the Democrat Party that…we must have legislation to secure the border.”

“But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president,” he concluded.

It has become starkly obvious over the last 6 weeks that the same principle applies to energy policy. The whole world has changed since Jan. 20.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

Whenever there’s a heatwave—whether at home or abroad—the media loves to splash it. Politicians and campaigners then jump in to warn that climate change is at fault, and urge us to cut carbon emissions. But they are only telling us one-tenth of the story and giving terrible advice.

Global warming indeed causes more heat waves, and these raise the risk that more people die because of heat. That much is true. But higher temperatures also cause a reduction in cold temperatures, reducing the risk that people die from the cold. Almost everywhere in the world—not just Canada—cold kills 5-15 times more people than heat.

Heat gets a lot of attention both because of its obvious link to climate change and because it is immediately visible—meaning it is photogenic for the media. Heat kills within a few days of temperatures getting too high, because it alters the fluid and electrolytic balance in weaker, often older people.

Cold, on the other hand, slowly kills over months. At low temperatures, the body constricts outer blood vessels to conserve heat, driving up blood pressure. High blood pressure is the world’s leading killer, causing 19 per cent of all deaths.

Depending on where we live, taking into account infrastructure like heating and cooling, along with vehicles and clothes to keep us comfortable, there is a temperature at which deaths will be at a minimum. If it gets warmer or colder, more people will die.

A recent Lancet study shows that if we count all the additional deaths from too-hot temperatures globally, heat kills nearly half a million people each year. But too-cold temperatures are more than nine-times deadlier, killing over 4.5 million people.

In Canada, unsurprisingly, cold is even deadlier, killing more than 12 times more than heat. Each year, about 1,400 Canadians die from heat, but more than 17,000 die because of the cold.

Every time there is a heatwave, climate activists will tell you that global warming is an existential problem and we need to switch to renewables. And yes, the terrible heat dome in BC in June 2021 tragically killed 450-600 people and was likely made worse by global warming. But in that same year, the cold in BC killed 2,500 people, yet these deaths made few headlines.

Moreover, the advice from climate activists—that we should hasten the switch away from fossil fuels—is deeply problematic. Switching to renewables drives up energy prices. How do people better survive heat? With air conditioning. Over the last century, despite the temperature increasing, the US saw a remarkable drop in heat deaths because of more air conditioning. Making electricity for air conditioning more expensive means especially poorer people cannot afford to stay cool, and more people die.

Likewise, access to more heating has made our homes less deadly in winter, driving down cold mortality over the 20th century. One study shows that cheap gas heating in the late 2000s saved 12,500 Americans from dying of cold each year. Making heating more expensive will consign at least 12,500 people to die each year because they can no longer afford to keep warm.

One thing climate campaigners never admit is that current temperature rises actually make fewer people die overall from heat and cold. While rising temperatures drive more heat deaths, they also reduce the number of cold deaths — and because cold deaths are much more prevalent, this reduces total deaths significantly.

The only global estimate shows that in the last two decades, rising temperatures have increased heat deaths by 0.21 percentage points but reduced cold deaths by 0.51 percentage points. Rising temperatures have reduced net global death by 0.3 per cent, meaning some 166,000 deaths have been avoided. The researchers haven’t done the numbers for Canada alone, but combined with the US, increased temperatures have caused an extra 5,000 heat deaths annually, but reduced the number of cold deaths by 14,000.

If temperatures keep rising, cold deaths can only be reduced so much. Eventually, of course, total deaths will increase again. But a new near-global Nature study shows that, looking only at the impact of climate change, the number of total dead from heat and cold will stay lower than today almost up to a 3oC temperature increase, which is more than currently expected by the end of the century.

People claim that we will soon be in a world that is literally too hot and humid to live in, using something called the “wet bulb” temperature. But under realistic assumptions, the actual number of people who by century’s end will live in unlivable circumstances is still zero.

The incessant focus on tens or hundreds of people dying in for instance Indian heatwaves makes us forget that even in India, cold is a much bigger challenge. While heat kills 89,000 people each year, cold kills seven times more at 632,000 every year. Yet, you would never know with the current climate information we get.

Hearing only the alarmist side of heat and cold deaths not only scares people—especially younger generations—but points us toward ineffective policies that drive up energy costs and let more people die from lack of adequate protection against both heat and cold.

Bjørn Lomborg