Connect with us

Daily Caller

International Energy Agency should go on Trump’s Chopping Block

Published

6 minute read

French President Macron has called the IEA the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Among the many promises and commitments that he has made during his ongoing transition period, President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pull U.S. support for the World Health Organization and cancel its commitments related to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. If a new report issued this week by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and incoming chairman Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, is any guide, Trump perhaps should add U.S. support for the International Energy Agency to his growing list of cancellation opportunities.

“French President Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true,” said the report. “With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”

The IEA was established in 1974 in response to the first Arab Oil Embargo which resulted in dramatically higher prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump. Originally supported by 31 member countries including the United States, the agency’s mission was to provide accurate information related to global oil supply and demand which subscribing countries could use to help form effective energy policies. That original mission held firm for decades, during which the IEA was widely considered a leading source of real, unbiased energy information.

But politics tends to corrupt everything it touches, and the IEA has unfortunately proved to be no exception to that rule. As the politics surrounding climate alarmism rose to new highs following the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, the agency came under increasing pressure to radically alter its mission from that of a provider of real information worthy of trust to more of an activist posture.

In 2020, the report notes, this led to a shift in the IEA’s mission statement and to a new design to its modeling processes that form the basis for its annual World Energy Outlook. As its modeling base case, the agency abandoned its longstanding Current Policies Scenario, which Barrasso’s report describes as “essentially a ‘business as usual’ reference case,” in favor of a more aggressive Stated Policies Scenario.

Barrasso’s report describes this new scenario as “a hypothetical outlook based on unimplemented policies and grounded in unrealistically optimistic assumptions about the pace and scale of the transformation, especially concerning the adoption of electric vehicles by consumers.” It is an approach intentionally designed to introduce bias into the modeling process, and thus into the IEA policy recommendations for which the modeling process serves as the foundation.

This inevitable bias had an immediate and very noticeable effect. In a report published by the IEA in May 2021 Executive Director Fatih Birol laughably stated that “there will not be a need for new investments in oil and gas fields” and urged oil and gas producers to halt investments in exploration and development of new oil reserves. But that was before oil prices exploded as global demand exceeded supply during the recovery from the COVID pandemic, and by August Birol had completely reversed himself, joining President Joe Biden in a desperate call for more oil drilling to help resolve the situation.

Obviously, this sort of flip-floppery does severe damage to the agency’s already crumbling credibility as well as to the justification for governments to continue pouring millions of dollars into its operations each year. Barrasso’s report correctly notes that the IEA’s “reputation has lost its luster.”

Barrasso’s report is blunt about the kinds of reforms he would like to see at the IEA, urging Birol to abandon its advocacy posturing against investments in oil, natural gas, and coal, and to “once again produce for its World Energy Outlook a real unbiased, policy-neutral ‘business as usual’ reference case of the kind the Energy Information Administration produces.”

The Wyoming senator stops short of calling for the U.S. defunding of the IEA, but the agency’s currency is information. If that currency has lost its value, then perhaps Trump should consider a more aggressive approach.

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.

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

Business

Tariffs by Tuesday: Trump Says There Is ‘No Room Left’ For Any Negotiations On Postponing Tariffs On Mexico, Canada

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nicole Silverio

President Donald Trump said Monday that there is “no room left” for any negotiations on postponing tariffs on Mexico, Canada or China in response to their handling of the immigration and fentanyl crisis.

Trump initially planned to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China over its role in allowing illegal immigration and fentanyl to pour into the U.S. in record numbers. After postponing these tariffs for a month after Mexico and Canada caved to his requests, the president said he has fully made up his mind to officially impose these tariffs this upcoming Tuesday.

“No room left for Mexico or for Canada. No, the tariffs [are] all set, they go into effect tomorrow,” Trump said. “And just so you understand, vast amounts of fentanyl have poured into our country from Mexico and as you know, also from China where it goes to Mexico and goes to Canada and China also had an additional 10 [percent], so it’s 10 + 10, and it comes in from Canada and it comes in from Mexico and that’s a very important thing to say.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

WATCH:

Trump postponed the tariffs on Feb. 3 after Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau caved to his requests by increasing their efforts to tackle illegal immigration and fentanyl. Sheinbaum deployed 10,000 National Guard soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border while Trudeau invested $1.3 billion to crackdown on illegal migration and appointed a “Fentanyl Czar” to oversee a $200 million effort against the drug.

The president announced in a Feb. 27 Truth Social post that he planned to double the tariffs on China to 20% and move forward with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada over the “very high and unacceptable levels” of drugs pouring into the U.S.

“We cannot allow this scourge to continue to harm the USA, and therefore, until it stops, or is seriously limited, the proposed TARIFFS scheduled to go into effect on MARCH FOURTH will, indeed, go into effect, as scheduled,” Trump said. “China will likewise be charged an additional 10% Tariff on that date. The April Second Reciprocal Tariff date will remain in full force and effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

These three countries are being slapped with tariffs as the U.S. suffers a fentanyl epidemic, with over 21,000 pounds of the deadly drug being seized at the southern border in the fiscal year 2024, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Border agents have seized over 5,400 pounds in the 2025 fiscal year thus far.

At the U.S.-Canadian border, officials encountered over 11,000 pounds of drugs in the 2024 fiscal year and over 3,200 pounds have so far been seized in the 2025 fiscal year, according to CBP data. Over 60,000 pounds and 55,000 pounds of drugs were seized in the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years.

U.S. border officials also encountered over 8.5 million migrants at the southern border during the four fiscal years of former President Joe Biden’s administration. Border crossings at the northern border skyrocketed with over 198,000 encounters and nearly 19,000 arrests occurring in the 2024 fiscal year.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Could Upend Every Facet Of The Obama-Biden Climate Agenda In One Fell Swoop

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By

Every week in this second Donald Trump presidency is such a whirlwind of major events that it is always a challenge to pick a topic for the next contribution here at the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But, despite this having been one of the most frenzied weeks of all since Jan. 20, picking the topic for this column was easy, because no energy-related action by this administration would have a bigger impact on American society than a successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gas regulation.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin “has privately urged the White House to strike down a scientific finding underpinning much of the federal government’s push to combat climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.” Zeldin’s recommendation was a response to Trump’s Day 1 executive order tasking Zeldin to conduct a review of “the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).’”

Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The Obama EPA’s finding was enabled by the 2007 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case allowing the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants in the context of the Clean Air Act. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who long served as the swing vote on the Court, joined with four liberal justices to give EPA this authority.

Given that the main so-called “greenhouse gases” — water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide — are all naturally occurring elements, a ruling classifying them as “pollutants” as that term was intended by the authors of the Clean Air Act in 1963 was absurd on its face, but that didn’t stop the five justices from imposing their political will on U.S. society.

Since implemented by the Obama EPA, the endangerment finding has served as the foundational basis for the vast expansion of climate change regulations impacting every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy, dramatically increasing the cost of energy for all Americans. The climate alarm hysteria over carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food and the basis for all life in Planet Earth, was also the motivational basis for every aspect of the Biden-era efforts to force taxpayers to bear the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy subsidies.

So, what has changed between 2007 and today to make Administrator Zeldin and President Trump think their attempt to reverse this endangerment finding would survive all the court challenges that would arise from the climate alarm community?

First, there is the dramatic shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy is no longer on the court, nor are the other four justices who issued the majority decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Where the Court was evenly divided in 2007, today’s Supreme Court is made up of a decisive 6-3 originalist majority with three justices appointed by Donald Trump himself during his first presidency.

But an even more decisive difference now stems from last year’s reversal of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case. As I wrote here at the time, the Chevron Deference, established as a legal doctrine in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1984, required the federal judiciary to defer to the regulators’ judgments about the governing statutes whenever the statutory intent was vague and open to interpretation.

That doctrine of law led directly to the vast expansion of the regulatory state for the 40 years it was in effect. The question now becomes whether, in the absence of that doctrine, regulators at the EPA truly have the authority to regulate atmospheric plant food in the same way they regulate particulate matter and other forms of real air pollution.

A successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA endangerment finding would then put every element of the Obama/Biden climate agenda in jeopardy.

Mr. Trump likes to say he wants to bring common sense back to government. This is one big way to do exactly that.

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X