Tag Archives: Energy

Climate Schlimate, Paris Accord

Pulling out of the Paris Accord is best for America. The anti-capitalist anti-American community are pushing the narrative that man-made global warming is going to kill the planet, and that the United States is responsible, and should set the example by agreeing to it.

The [agreement] promises to damage the economy while surrendering American sovereignty over climate policy to yet another international, largely anti-American enterprise. Our climate policy — which incorporates health and economic policy — would be mandated by the terms of this agreement. It is a hard-and-fast agreement that targets the United States as the primary culprit and requires the United States to carry the primary burden in fixing what isn’t broken, in stopping what isn’t happening: Man-made climate change.

We are setting the example already, and don’t need to shift trillions of taxpayer dollars from our side of the planet to the other. Get back to me when the rest of the world, including China and India, can run their industrialized economies as efficiently and environmentally friendly as we do. Then tell me what the global temperature should be, and how to keep it from changing.

OPEC’s World Changing

Ever since the long gas lines of the 70’s and the invention of the Department of Energy under Jimmy Carter (which proved to be an exercise in futility), Americans have been held hostage to OPEC in the prices they pay for fuel.

Two headlines tell a story . . .

Finally, having the will to use the energy potential we have,  the United States can shift from being an energy buyer to an energy producer-seller. And OPEC doesn’t like the new competition.

Thanks to the Trump administration’s opening up of our own energy resources with the goal of energy independence, the global energy market has changed.

Nothing against OPEC, but it is they who have to adjust to market pressures. As for the United States? It’s America first.

Dept of Energy Embeds

One of the things people don’t like about Washington, and the Obama administration, is the way that political operatives are embedded into every agency of the Executive Branch.  So much so that the phrase “drain the swamp,” made popular by candidate Trump, now Pres.-elect Trump, was widely accepted by voters in November.

The politicization of the Dept. of Energy is in the news now. The Dept. of Justice is another, but that’s for another time.

Lately, the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

So it’s no surprise that the Obama administration stiffed the incoming transition team’s request for names in the DoE who have been working in the area of Climate Change. Not only that, but Democrats are pushing back for them even wanting to know. The epitome of politicization of an agency. They claim it is over-reaching. I think it is important to know who is involved so the new administration can learn what it is they have to say on the subject. Regardless, it won’t take long for the new administration to find out who they are and what they know. Sooner or later, the swamp will be drained of the political embeds poised to fight against the administration.

Like Obama once said. Elections have consequences.

Links: Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans  |  DOE won’t provide names of climate change staffers to Trump team  |  Democrats call for special counsel to probe Trump team’s focus on climate scientists

Dep. of Interior Goes Rouge On Dakota Pipeline

This is a prime example how the unelected bureaucracy, with its regulatory agencies, drive up cost of everything, including the Dakota Access oil pipeline in southern North Dakota.

After a decade of planning, research, and obtaining approvals for same, Obama’s Dept. of Interior throws a wrench into the project by using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny an easement for the completion of the project.

The pipeline is largely complete except for the now-blocked segment underneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir.

But that’s not all it did. The Department also inserted a pack of Indians, protesters, with zero interest in the project into the negotiating and planning process.

According to a news release, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said her decision was based on the need to “explore alternate routes” for the pipeline’s crossing. What? Now that it is already built is no time to explore alternate routes.

And anyone should even wonder why the Obama administration is the most unfriendly to business and industry?  Especially the energy industry. And why they move overseas wherever possible to avoid this kind of interference?

Links: The Dakota Access Pipeline Project  |  Army Corps blocks route of Dakota Access oil pipeline

Stumped On Trump

Up until the other day, both of the so-called outsiders had me going ‘yeah, that’s right.’ Both Ted Cruz and Donald J. Trump championed free-market capitalism. Both believed that corporate welfare and crony capitalism had no place in a government by, of, and for the people. Both denounce pandering to special interests.

This is what Trump said in Pensacola just last week: (h/t Inweekly)

“Believe me, so much special interest that the politicians they’re all talk, they’re no action. They’re controlled by their lobbyist or their special or their donors, totally. If it’s bad remember this, if it’s bad for the United States, and if it’s good for them and the people they’re representing, forget it. The United States doesn’t have a chance.”

This all changed when Cruz was polling closer to Trump, and the Iowa caucuses became imminent.

Trump is a smart guy, and at the top of his game in his profession. But to now accuse Ted Cruz of being beholden to Big Oil because he does not support the food-for-fuel scam on the public called government subsidizing the ethanol industry, he has dropped off the conservative wagon. Aside from that accusation being patently not true, Cruz wants to end subsidies to the oil industry as well. He wants to end all govt subsidies, leaving the innovation and success in all industries up to the free market.

There is a contradiction that I can’t reconcile here about Trump. When in Iowa, to talk about not only supporting govt intervention and subsidies to the ethanol industry, (which makes fuel and food more expensive, and has a larger carbon footprint to produce than what is purported to save by using it http://bit.ly/aFcNt9), Trump is calling for increasing ethanol government subsides. If that’s not pandering, I don’t know what is. I’m sure his recent endorsee, Sarah Palin, would be in favor of ending the Big Agra welfare. Not increasing it. Hoping she can get his mind right on this.

It’s a contradiction in everything Trump has campaigned on until he entered Iowa. If a close and credible challenge is all it takes for him to change his principles, I’m sorry to see it.

I’m also sorry to see him lying about Cruz, just like Democrats do, to try to discredit him. The opportunity for a Republican landslide is at hand. It’s the Republican’s election to lose. Keep your taking points and criticisms of your opponents factual. Mr. Trump, don’t screw it up by going to the dark side.

Obama Caves To Greens, Rejects XL Pipeline

Moving right along to govern against the will of the people, President Obama, and his sidekick Sec. of State John Kerry, rejected  the largest energy-related infrastructure project in decades, the Keystone XL pipeline.

What the media calls a victory for “the greens,” the American people call a government that operates for special interests who put dollars in campaign coffers. Which is why Gallup comes up with this, “Americans Name Government as No. 1 U.S. Problem.”

Despite the State Department’s own environmental impact study which says having the XL Pipeline will reduce carbon emissions compared to not having it, President Obama turns out to be against it for political reasons instead of for it for economic and scientific reasons. (It’s what community organizers do.)

Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed regardless of U.S. action on the pipeline, the report said, and other options to get the oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries — including rail, trucks and barges — would be worse for climate change.

Since this oil is going to be extracted anyway, what is to gain by not allowing the XL pipeline? That’s easy, it will be carried on Warren Buffet’s (Obama contributor and activist) railroad, with the exploding trains instead?

And did I mention that the American people think government is the number one problem? And who’s been in charge again?

Links: Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline in win for greens  |  Fellow Democrats press Obama to approve Keystone, following environmental report  |  Americans Name Government as No. 1 U.S. Problem

What’s Another $3 Billion Down The Drain?

It was four years ago that President Obama, through the US Export-Import Bank, extended $3 billion credit to Brazil to finance infrastructure projects and offshore oil drilling. See, he really is for offshore drilling. Just not in his own country.

The money was for Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company. Essentially, it was for Brazil’s top politicians.

In today’s news, four years later, Petrobras can’t borrow money for a used car. Their credit rating is junk. And it all began four years ago with bribes and kickbacks.

Everything he touches turns to . . . No, it’s not gold. Another Solyndra, another Arab Spring, a new Libya, fall of Iraq, rise of ISIS, jobs for terrorists, nukes for Iran. You name it. And that’s just over there. Over here there is chronic long-term unemployment and falling family incomes. Obama’s wealthy donor friends excepted.

And to think we still have two more years with this wrecking ball in The White House.

Links: US Export-Import Bank extends $3 billion credit to Brazil to finance infrastructure projects and offshore oil drilling  |  State Oil Firm’s Scandal Scrambles Brazil’s Offshore Dreams  |  Brazil Petrobras scandal: Top politicians accused

Obama’s Energy Rope-a-Dope

President Obama announced today that he is opening up some areas for oil and gas development. Some in the Gulf of Mexico, some in the Atlantic. Alaska, not so much. Alaska needs more study. ‘More study’ is political-speak for ‘it ain’t gonna happen.’

Nevertheless, the President seemed to echo what he said in his State of the Union Address in January.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

And today, President Obama said . . .

But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.

Don’t think for a minute that the President is serious about drilling. Just like he isn’t serious about nuclear energy. Seen any new refineries being built? Seen any new oil drilling going on? Seen any new nuclear plants being built? NO! What we have seen is ANWR and Bristol Bay being held hostage, and the closing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. With no place to put nuclear waste, how many new nuclear plants will be built?

Today’s show at Andrews Air Force Base was a political rope-a-dope. His goal is far from using and getting more of our own energy resources. His goal is cap and trade legislation that will do exactly the opposite of what he said he wanted to do today. It will kill economic growth and jobs, depress business, and raise costs. We will pay more for electric and all other products because of tax pressure put on the industries that produce them. And in the end, the redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice.

NPR is trying to make sense out of Obama’s statement. Here’s what they came up with . . .

Much of the speculation for the administration’s reasoning has been on the need to get Republican votes for Obama’s climate legislation. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are trying to hammer out a bipartisan climate bill, but Graham is getting no GOP backing on this, and Graham himself has said that he couldn’t support a bill that “doesn’t have off-shore drilling in a meaningful way.”

The New York Times’ John Broder writes that today’s proposal by Obama could “help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation,” . . .

He is repeating his SOTU line in order to get support from Republicans for his cap and trade agenda. Combine this with Obamacare and the American Dream will be history. America will have its newest founding father.

Links:

———————

Now consider this. The above article was posted 5 years ago. Have you noticed any progress? Have you noticed his words turning in to action? Now in the beginning of 2015, President Obama is refusing to give the go-ahead for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Keystone XL Pipeline route maps HERE.

Obama Declares War On ANWR

Declaring the oil-rich coastal plain, which was set aside for oil exploration and development in the first place, a “wilderness area,” Obama is effectively preventing any access to it for the purposes it was originally intended. Oil and gas exploration and development.

Time for a refresher on ANWR.   ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 101

Shutting down energy resources by declaring wilderness areas is nothing new where Democrat Presidents are concerned. Bill Clinton  shut the low-sulfur coal industry completely down by declaring all of it (1.8 million acres) in the United States a “monument.”

For Clinton though, it was more sinister. It was a twofer for Clinton. By declaring the lands where all our low-sulfur coal exists in the United States a “monument,” he hands a world monopoly to a big campaign contributor of his, the Chinese Rhiady family,

Now a quick mineralogical lesson. There are only two known low-sulphur coal reserves in the world, one of which is under the land in Utah that was blocked off by Clinton. And the other is in China. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the U.S. energy sector can buy low-sulphur coal from China, because now, they have to.

Links: Obama Seeks Bigger Wilderness Designation in Alaska Refuge  |  President Obama Calls on Congress to Protect Arctic Refuge as Wilderness