Why Democrats Make Energy Expensive (And Dirty)

Progressives say they care more about working people and climate change than Republicans and moderate Democrats. Why, then, do they advocate policies that make energy expensive and dirty?

Progressive Democrats including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the head of the House progressive caucus, have sent a letter demanding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigate whether “market manipulation” is causing natural gas prices to rise 30 percent on average for consumers over last winter, an astonishing $746 per household.

But the main reason natural gas prices are rising is because progressives have been so successful in restricting natural gas production. Sanders, Jayapal, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), as individuals and as part of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have successful fought to restrict natural gas production through fracking and to block natural gas pipelines, including the Atlantic Coast pipeline.

In 2020, Sanders celebrated efforts by progressives to cancel the Atlantic Coast pipeline. Today, New England is facing rolling blackouts and importing natural gas from Russia. “Getting [natural] gas to [progressive Senators Ed] Markey and [Elizabeth] Warren’s Massachusetts is so difficult,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “that sometimes it comes into Boston Harbor on a tanker from Russia.”

Bernie Sanders @SenSanders

This is a major victory for the millions-strong climate justice movement, which fought for years to stop this pipeline. Together, we will secure clean air and good jobs building a renewable-energy economy that protects the only planet we have. Energy companies cancel construction of Atlantic Coast PipelineDominion Energy and Duke Energy have canceled their Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, a natural gas pipeline that was to stretch hundreds of miles across West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, citing “legal uncertainty.”cnn.com

July 6th 2020

1,033 Retweets5,760 Likes

Democrats aren’t the only reason the United States isn’t producing enough natural gas to keep prices at the same low levels they’ve been at for the past decade. There is higher demand as the economy emerges from covid. There is greater demand for natural gas internationally due to a bad year for wind energy in Europe. And President Joe Biden, for his part, has resisted many progressive demands to restrict oil and gas production.

But the main reason there isn’t enough natural gas production is because of successful progressive Democratic efforts to restrict natural gas production in the United States, Europe, and other parts of the world in the name of fighting climate change, as I was one of the first to report last fall. Sanders and Jayapal talk about “market manipulation” and “profiteering” but to the extent there is any of either it’s because of inadequate supplies of natural gas and the pipelines to transport it.

Successful shareholder activism, known in the industry as “ESG” for environmental, social, and governance issues, resulted in less investment in oil and gas production, and more weather-dependent renewables, which result in higher prices everywhere they are deployed at scale. Even ESG champions including Financial Times, Goldman Sachs, and Bloomberg all now acknowledge that it was climate activist shareholder efforts that restricted oil and gas investment.

Such efforts also directly led to increasing carbon emissions. Last year saw a whopping 17 percent increase in coal-fired electricity, which resulted in a six percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions. It was the first annual increase in coal use since 2014. The reason for it was because of the scarcity and higher price of natural gas, coal’s direct replacement, not just in the U.S. but globally, since the US exports a significant quantity of natural gas.

The other reason the U.S. used more coal in 2021 is because progressive Democrats are shutting down nuclear plants. “When a nuclear plant is closed, it’s closed forever,” noted Mark Nelson of Radiant Energy Fund, an energy analytics firm, “whereas coal plants can afford to operate at relatively low levels of capacity, like just 30 to 50 percent operation, and thus wait for natural gas prices, and thus demand for coal, to rise.”

Progressives like Sanders, Jayapal, and AOC claim to care more about poor people, working people, and climate change than either Republicans or moderate Democrats, who they defeat in Democratic primary elections. Why, then, do they advocate policies that make energy expensive and dirty?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC

Fracking is bad, actually

October 8th 2020

81,570 Retweets648,545 Likes

A big part of the reason progressives make energy expensive appears to be that they just don’t know very much about energy. The fact that they are demanding that FERC investigate higher prices suggests they want to keep energy prices low. But it could also mean that their letter is just public relations cover so they are not blamed for raising energy prices.

Indeed, it would be naive to think that Sanders and other progressives didn’t realize that blocking pipelines, opposing fracking, and subsidizing renewables would make energy expensive, given that making energy expensive has been the highest goal of their main climate advisor, Bill McKibben, who subscribes to the Malthusian view that there are too many humans and we must restrict energy and development.

If renewables were cheaper than the status quo then the policies they advocate — no permitting of pipelines, restrictions on fracking, and subsidies for renewables — would not be necessary. Besides, mainstream energy experts and journalists today admit that weather-dependent renewables make electricity expensive…

Subscribe to Michael Shellenberger to read the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Michael Shellenberger to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

A subscription gets you:

	Subscriber-only posts and full archive
	Post comments and join the community

Related Topics:#AOC #BernieSanders #DemocratsMakeEnergyExpensiveAndDirty #MichaelShellenberger #PramilaJayapal

Up Next

The High Stakes Plan To Sheikh Up Golf

Don't Miss

Has CERB turned Alberta into a Welfare state? “Money for nothing, watching their MTV.”

Todayville

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

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 5 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Crime / 6 hours ago

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Brett Rowland

Investigative Reporter

Alberta

Canadian Oil Sands Production Expected to Reach All-time Highs this Year Despite Lower Oil Prices

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From Energy Now

S&P Global Commodity Insights has raised its 10-year production outlook for the Canadian oil sands. The latest forecast expects oil sands production to reach a record annual average production of 3.5 million b/d in 2025 (5% higher than 2024) and exceed 3.9 million b/d by 2030—half a million barrels per day higher than 2024. The 2030 projection is 100,000 barrels per day (or nearly 3%) higher than the previous outlook.

The new forecast, produced by the S&P Global Commodity Insights Oil Sands Dialogue, is the fourth consecutive upward revision to the annual outlook. Despite a lower oil price environment, the analysis attributes the increased projection to favorable economics, as producers continue to focus on maximizing existing assets through investments in optimization and efficiency.

Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here

While large up-front, out-of-pocket expenditures over multiple years are required to bring online new oil sands projects, once completed, projects enjoy relatively low breakeven prices.

S&P Global Commodity Insights estimates that the 2025 half-cycle break-even for oil sands production ranged from US$18/b to US$45/b, on a WTI basis, with the overall average break-even being approximately US$27/b.*

“The increased trajectory for Canadian oil sands production growth amidst a period of oil price volatility reflects producers’ continued emphasis on optimization—and the favorable economics that underpin such operations,” said Kevin Birn, Chief Canadian Oil Analyst, S&P Global Commodity Insights. “More than 3.8 million barrels per day of existing installed capacity was brought online from 2001 and 2017. This large resource base provides ample room for producers to find debottlenecking opportunities, decrease downtime and increase throughput.”

The potential for additional upside exists given the nature of optimization projects, which often result from learning by doing or emerge organically, the analysis says.

“Many companies are likely to proceed with optimizations even in more challenging price environments because they often contribute to efficiency gains,” said Celina Hwang, Director, Crude Oil Markets, S&P Global Commodity Insights. “This dynamic adds to the resiliency of oil sands production and its ability to grow through periods of price volatility.”

The outlook continues to expect oil sands production to enter a plateau later this decade. However, this is also expected to occur at a higher level of production than previously estimated. The new forecast expects oil sands production to be 3.7 million b/d in 2035—100,000 b/d higher than the previous outlook.

Export capacity—already a concern in recent years—is a source of downside risk now that even more production growth is expected. Without further incremental pipeline capacity, export constraints have the potential to re-emerge as early as next year, the analysis says.

“While a lower price path in 2025 and the potential for pipeline export constraints are downside risks to this outlook, the oil sands have proven able to withstand extreme price volatility in the past,” said Hwang. “The low break-even costs for existing projects and producers’ ability to manage challenging situations in the past support the resilience of this outlook.”

* Half-cycle breakeven cost includes operating cost, the cost to purchase diluent (if needed), as well as an adjustment to enable a comparison to WTI—specifically, the cost of transport to Cushing, OK and quality differential between heavy and light oil.

About S&P Global Commodity Insights

At S&P Global Commodity Insights, our complete view of global energy and commodity markets enables our customers to make decisions with conviction and create long-term, sustainable value.

We’re a trusted connector that brings together thought leaders, market participants, governments, and regulators and we create solutions that lead to progress. Vital to navigating commodity markets, our coverage includes oil and gas, power, chemicals, metals, agriculture, shipping and energy transition. Platts^® products and services, including leading benchmark price assessments in the physical commodity markets, are offered through S&P Global Commodity Insights. S&P Global Commodity Insights maintains clear structural and operational separation between its price assessment activities and the other activities carried out by S&P Global Commodity Insights and the other business divisions of S&P Global.

S&P Global Commodity Insights is a division of S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI). S&P Global is the world’s foremost provider of credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics and workﬂow solutions in the global capital, commodity and automotive markets. With every one of our offerings, we help many of the world’s leading organizations navigate the economic landscape so they can plan for tomorrow, today. For more information visit https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en.

SOURCE S&P Global Commodity Insights