Connect with us

Daily Caller

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

Published

7 hours ago

6 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

That is what happens when “science” isn’t science at all and energy reality is ignored in favor of the prevailing narratives of the political left.

As Congress struggled with yet another chaotic episode of negotiations over another catastrophic continuing resolution, all I could think was how wonderful it would be for everyone if they just shut the government down and brought an end to the Biden administration and its incredibly braindead and destructive energy-policy farce a month early.

What a blessing it would be for the country if President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were forced to stop “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” 30 days ahead of schedule. What a merry Christmas we could have if we never had to hear silly talking points based on pseudoscience from the likes of Biden’s climate policy adviser John Podesta or Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm or Biden himself (read, as always, from his ever-present TelePrompTer) again!

What a shame it has been that the rest of us have been forced to take such unserious people seriously for the last four years solely because they had assumed power over the rest of us. As Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead spent decades singing: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”

Speaking of Granholm, she put the perfect coda to this administration’s seemingly endless series of policy scams this week by playing cynical political games with what was advertised as a serious study. It was ostensibly a study so vitally important that it mandated the suspension of permitting for one of the country’s great growth industries while we breathlessly awaited its publication for most of a year.

That, of course, was the Department of Energy’s (DOE) study related to the economic and environmental impacts of continued growth of the U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) export industry. We were told in January by both Granholm and Biden that the need to conduct this study was so urgent, that it was entirely necessary to suspend permitting for new LNG export infrastructure until it was completed.

The grand plan was transparent: implement the “pause” based on a highly suspect LNG emissions draft study by researchers at Cornell University, and then publish an impactful DOE study that could be used by a President Kamala Harris to implement a permanent ban on new export facilities. It no doubt seemed foolproof at the Biden White House, but schemes like this never turn out to be anywhere near that.

First, the scientific basis for implementing the pause to begin with fell apart when the authors of the draft Cornell study were forced to radically lower their emissions estimates in the final product published in September.

And then, the DOE study findings turned out to be a mixed bag proving no real danger in allowing the industry to resume its growth path.

Faced with a completed study whose findings essentially amount to a big bag of nothing, Granholm decided she could not simply publish it and let it stand on its own merits. Instead, someone at DOE decided it would be a great idea to leak a three-page letter to the New York Times 24 hours before publication of the study in an obvious attempt to punch up the findings.

The problem with Granholm’s letter was, as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board put it Thursday, “the study’s facts are at war with her conclusions.” After ticking off a list of ways in which Granholm’s letter exaggerates and misleads about the study’s actual findings, the Journal’s editorial added, “Our sources say the Biden National Security Council and career officials at Energy’s National Laboratories disagree with Ms. Granholm’s conclusions.”

There can be little doubt that this reality would have held little sway in a Kamala Harris presidency. Granholm’s and Podesta’s talking points would have almost certainly resulted in making the permitting “pause” a permanent feature of U.S. energy policy. That is what happens when “science” isn’t science at all and energy reality is ignored in favor of the prevailing narratives of the political left.

What a blessing it would have been to put an end to this form of policy madness a month ahead of time. January 20 surely cannot come soon enough.

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.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Daily Caller / 7 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 7 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 7 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

armed forces

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

Published on December 21, 2024

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By J.D. Foster

Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.

Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back

In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”

The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”

Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.

A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.

The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.

Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.

In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.

NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.

What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.

Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.

Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.

The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.

Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.

This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.

This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.

The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.

J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Shoot Down The Drones!

Published on December 20, 2024

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Lewis

If you were to ask the question: Why are so many drones the size of cars flying over New Jersey? You would think someone in the government might know.

Alas, this is the “deep state” era and after a history of coverups (from Russian collusion to COVID lab leaks to Hunter Biden’s laptop), the Feds are either lying or incompetent. If it is a high-tech repeat of the Chinese balloon fiasco, you have to wonder what Xi Jinping has on the Biden family.

OK, not really.

Regardless, the drone sightings have spread across the Northeast, near sensitive locations and even temporarily shutting down a local airport — yet federal officials insist there is no security threat. But how would they know unless they are the ones putting them up?

Which, by the way, is one of the so-called conspiracy theories that suggests the Feds might be looking for something nefarious they don’t want the public to know.  The bottom line is no one is being told what is going on, but more and more folks know exactly what they would like to do about it.

Shoot the damn things down.

Predictably, craven New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (who had eagerly reiterated there were “no public safety risks,”) quickly reminded his constituents they don’t have authority to shoot down unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

It is indeed illegal under federal law to shoot at aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS). And for good reason if you’re talking about protecting lives engaged in military, commercial or personal air traffic.

But as we are witnessing, the centralization of power has its limits. Especially when it comes to preventing state officials from doing their duty. Relying on bureaucrats in Washington to handle local exigencies is still a fool’s errand.

The main obstacle to giving local authorities more leeway has been the largest and most powerful of commercial (and hobby) interests. Amazon and Google haven’t been shy about flexing their lobbying muscle in support of federal preemption of state law that might get in the way of delivery drones constantly buzzing over your house en route to your neighbor’s.

The invasions of privacy could get even worse. Imagine a perverted neighbor with a camera mounted drone hovering outside your bathroom window?

So, who ‘ya supposed to call? Why, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), of course. They’ll get right back to you.

Above and beyond the bureaucratic inertia, homeowners are supposed to count on an FAA that fast-tracked Alphabet’s Wing Aviation drones for consumer-goods deliveries? That was 2019, about a year and a half after I introduced the Drone Innovation Act preventing the Feds from authorizing UAS within the “immediate reaches” above someone’s property without the owner’s permission.

Navigable airspace above 400 feet was left in the hands of Washington, but the legislation allowed for the traditional “police powers” of state and local government to protect common law rights to privacy from an aerial nuisance or trespass.

Not surprisingly, the special interests marshaled their forces to block a bill that would have put reasonable limits on federal preemption of state and local laws, which are especially prevalent in areas “affecting commercial UAS operators.”

Somewhere, Jeff Bezos must still be smiling.

Former Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.) writes at jasonlewis.substack.com and is the author of Party Animal, The Truth About President Trump, Power Politics & the Partisan Press now out in paperback.

Continue Reading

Trending

X