So much is true, in broad swaths of this beautifully written article. God is in the details, and I believe that Biden ending our energy independence and exportation was a massive blow to “world peace” —cutting us off at the knees. But not only did he axe Keystone, he pushed Nordstream 2, further empowering a despot. I believe history, if not sanitized beyond recognition, will prove this out.
So much is true, in broad swaths of this beautifully written article. God is in the details, and I believe that Biden ending our energy independence and exportation was a massive blow to “world peace” —cutting us off at the knees. But not only did he axe Keystone, he pushed Nordstream 2, further empowering a despot. I believe history, if not sanitized beyond recognition, will prove this out.
So, not sure what you mean by 'ending our energy independence and exportation.'
The last I looked, in November 2021, the US was exporting three million barrels of light sweet crude oil daily. As well, in 2021, 3500 oil drilling leases were given out by the Biden Administration on US public lands. America is not 'cut off at the knees.'
And as per Biden, he contributed to the delivery of Nordstream 2, yes (now axed, of course) but don't forget the leader who pushed for it to keep Russia economically aligned with Europe - Angela Merkel. She was the one who gave leverage to Putin by allowing Russia to supply up to forty per cent of Germany's energy. Her instincts, spectacularly wrong in hindsight, combined with Germany's green energy initiatives (misguided at best, catastrophic at worst) - will make her history's scapegoat.
You're right about Putin being the despot. He takes the prize.
In 2019, United States energy production was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in sixty-two years. Therefore, when using that measurement, President Trump was correct in asserting that America was energy independent.
In 2019, the oil and gas industry increased the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in order to obtain crude oil; this was an increase by eleven percent. In 2019, total energy produced increased by 5.7 percent while demand decreased by 0.9 percent. The United States became a net exporter of energy that year. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. was the third-largest energy exporter in the world. This drove down prices for oil, gas, and natural gas, plus created 10 million jobs in domestic energy. The WSJ went on to discuss that technological innovation – a meeting of minds between the private sector, colleges, and the Energy Department’s national laboratories – made this energy exportation possible. Add to that that President Trump lifted decades-old bans on oil exportation, and energy independence was achieved.
Soon after Biden took office, the Energy Information Agency reported that the United States would begin importing more oil than it would export for 2021 and 2022. On January 27 of this year, Biden drafted an executive order largely affected the oil and gas industry. The order included the following guidelines:
Halted new oil and gas leases on federal onshore lands such as national parks and offshore waters (however, this did not affect tribal lands)
Directed the Secretary of the Interior to consider adjusting coal, oil and gas royalties to “account for corresponding climate costs” (i.e., the industry expected increased royalties)
Suspended new leases, contracts, or drilling permits for at least 60 days
Withdrew the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline
These policies have resulted in deep production cuts for companies in the U.S. Midwest gasoline stockpiles have dropped to one of their lowest levels since November 2014. By definition, we are no longer producing more energy than we consume, which is the chief reason we are no longer energy independent.
So, you can take the above info or what you will. But the US remained a net exporter for at least the first half of 2021.
But in all due respect, even if America has now become a net importer of oil - is that a 'massive blow' to world peace? How exactly have we been cut off at the knees? If anyone has been cut it would be Germany (40% of their energy comes from Russia). Which I'm very sure they will rectify soon.
in my research we became a net importer before the end of the Trump administration. Not sure why the data is so variable. But no matter, neither then or now were we truly energy independent. We should be and we could be with a government dedicated to that principle. People like to laud Trump but our Russian oil imports actually went up under Trump at the same time our exports went up.
Let me see if I get this reasoning right, Biden stopped the pipeline that would deliver less than 1% of the 88.4 million barrels per day in 2020 and lifted the sanctions on an incomplete pipeline to supply gas to Germany; this is the reason why Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, even though he had already invaded Ukraine eight years prior by annexing Crimea, where is the logic in this reasoning?
I see that you have adopted the administrations talking points, Just me. Biden made it clear before the election that he would undermine the fossil fuel industry in an effort to combat emissions. He started that process on day 1 with revoking the permit for Keystone and limiting natural gas and oil leases on federal lands. That was just the beginning. Perhaps you have noticed that the markets react to regulatory and political actions which will impact their future? Perhaps you have also noticed that investors may shy away from projects that could get crushed or never get permitted? Then add to this mix that FERC tightened permit requirements DURING the current Ukraine crisis for gas pipelines that would make them even more difficult if not impossible to get approved. Even more frightening the NRC revoked extension permits for two nuclear power plants, one in Florida and one in PA. These extension permits had already been granted under the Trump administration. How do you think investors will react to that? Do you know how long and how much money it takes to get a nuclear power plant approved in this country? Are you aware that if we truly want to cut emissions and satisfy our current energy demand we must embrace nuclear? Are you aware that current renewable cannot possibly meet demand in this country and that turning off fossil fuels will undermine our economy and put our national security at risk? Are you aware that much of Europe is financing the killing of Ukrainians because they are totally dependent on Russian oil and gas since they turned off their own means of production in the name of climate change? Check out Germany's stats if want a view of our energy future under Biden. 36% of Russia's budget in 2021 was comprised of oil and gas profits. Yes oil and gas purchases are financing his invasion. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is almost complete. It will be a further economic boon to Putin enabling his to rape and pillage Ukraine. Biden green lighted it as did Germany.
Excellent Sue you have summed up FJB leadership and administration in one post now the big ? Is where to from here we are gripped in this climate change nonsense still gripped in the COVID pandemic and the Democrats still suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome it’s hectic
Yes that is the question plus how does the average citizen like myself contribute to the solution. To that end I am asking all of my liberal friends if they support Biden's energy policy and if so why. First I want to ensure that I understand the various sides of this argument. Plus are my sources correct? Am I the one who has been misguided? Simple logic would suggest no but in this messed up world where so many news sources on both sides are propaganda, it is important to question the underpinnings of ones own belief structure. Then I will start drafting letters for people to use to communicate with their representatives. The only thing we can do is create an upswell of pressure on this administration. If Biden and co continue to dig in to the detriment of this country, we may then come to the conclusion that climate is only a smokescreen. Not sure what else to do but we the people must do something.
Interestingly in my circle of liberal friends I have not found anyone who supports Biden's energy policy which is why I have begun engaging strangers such as Just me.
Don’t question yourself or try to change your liberal friends if they haven’t realized since March 2020 how bad the Democrats have been then believe me they are stuck in the climate crap + Covid that elites and Democrats have been peddling since then I wouldn’t waste my time with them but I’m with you on every point you have made in your previous posts
I have always found it is best to understand as many sides of an issue as possible to craft strategies forward. I have no illusions that I will change the minds of those who believe we should make an abrupt turn away from fossil fuel and nuclear just like I was unable to influence the lockdown zealots who also helped destabilize our country. My only goal is to influence the politicians, many of whom blow with the wind. Frankly the chances of success with that are slim to none but this is so important it is impossible to sit and watch it happen.
When the USSR put a 180-pound orb into space, it started advancements in science that were unimaginable. When Pres. Kennedy said: "We choose to go to the moon," because it was a national defense issue, even with this consideration, 58% of Americans public disagreed, not unlike conservatives attitude towards renewable energy, America has a choice, it can go where mankind has never gone before, or it can stay in the past, and risk widespread species extinction with the potential of human suffering similar to what is taking place in Ukraine.
Or we can transition as the technology becomes available. We can move full steam ahead on nuclear with a goal of true energy independence and zero carbon emissions as renewable technology evolves. Wishing that wind and solar could supply demand does not make it so. Doesn't logic dictate we maintain supply of fossil fuels until we have an alternate means of supply? Yet this administration is hampering the industry via regulation and executive order. And bizarrely they are doing the same to nuclear which makes me wonder if emissions is a smokescreen for another more nefarious goal. Once again I direct your attention to how well that strategy worked out for Germany and therefore Ukraine. Transitioning before demand can be met is an act of economic suicide and will undermine us from a national security point of view. Frankly it already has.
Sue, renewable energy is not only viable, but it will be cheaper, particularly when you consider, economies of scale, and I’ll repeat, we are the number one oil and gas producer in the world. You keep framing the issue as though there is some urgency for petroleum products, but there is not. There is an urgency for renewable energy. It’s a choice we can live in the past and condemn 1 million species to extinction, or we can live in the future and save the planet as we know it; it’s our choice!
Hopefully you will indulge a few questions, Just me! Do you believe renewables are already advanced enough to supply our current energy demand? Is your understanding that it is just a matter of money to get renewables in place? If there were an immediate unlimited checkbook, how long would it take to ramp up renewables so fossil fuels could be completely replaced? Are you in favor of nuclear? I do believe you are sincere and I want to understand the rationale behind your views. Thanks for engaging.
Hopefully, this gives you a better understanding of where I’m coming from. In the first half of 2018, Germany produced enough renewable electricity to power every household in the country for a year. Similarly, Denmark gets or half of its electricity from wind and solar power in 2017. The world has 10,000 times its total energy use ( 173,000 terawatts ) shining down each day. On top of this, if we replace fossil fuel with renewable energy, it will create over 5 million good-paying jobs by 2050. The estimated cost to replace carbon-based energy by 2050 is $7.8 trillion, or around $279 billion a year. The fossil fuel welfare subsidy is about $20 billion a year, but America has additional costs. There’s an additional subsidy; the International Monetary Fund estimated that the costs to the U.S. government from climate change, local air pollution impacts, and infrastructure damage not captured by energy taxes totaled $686 billion in 2015. The projected cost of climate change is roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. That would be in terms of 2021s US GDP of $22.99 trillion, a cool $275.88 billion, so it comes to this, we can spend $279 billion a year preventing the problem, or we can spend $275.88 billion a year treading water, excuse the pun, and get nothing for it.
Thanks Just Me. I have to do some more research but there is a notable gap between producing 100% of the energy that is needed vs storing it and transporting it via suitable grids to the customer base. From what I understand there is not a technological solution available to store the energy from wind and solar for a rainy day. Meanwhile Germany is dependent on Russia for oil and gas. I appreciate the cost comparisons you mentioned above and will dig into those numbers. There is logic to your argument on the financial side. But meanwhile Germany is dependent on Russia for oil and gas and has been forced to temper their response to Russia. Plus they are financing the killing of Ukrainians with their strategy. France on the other hand has pursued a different path with nuclear. I would rather the US emulate Frances strategy not Germany's. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Let me begin this conversation with giving the definition of disingenuous: lacking in candor or giving a false appearance of simple candor like your comment, “I do believe you are sincere and I want to understand the rationale behind your views. Thanks for engaging.” You were being calculated! In polite company, this is considered rude! If you wanted to engage in a conversation about nuclear energy, you could have been straightforward; instead, you chose subterfuge. Candidly, do people respect you for this type of behavior?
Wow. Nice attack. Your assumptions are incorrect. I had no interest in a conversation on nuclear per se. I would have thought I was crystal clear - my goal is true energy independence. How do we get there and maintain our economy, environment and national security without empowering predators like Putin? I engaged because I want to understand why anyone would ever support Biden's single focused energy policy which follows the German model. France chose a different path and actually achieved low emissions and independence. The wildly different results of the two countries strategies is notable don't you think? Worth an examination? Germany and other countries in Europe have blood on their hands for their short sighted stupidity. Sadly we will all pay the price for their grievous error.
I also want to understand so I can perhaps understand the politicians who seem hell bent on making things worse. How can I approach them if I don't understand how they could think that way. Interestingly that fact that you reverted to insults gave me the info I needed. In the future, perhaps it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions....
Madjack, you’re wedded to the technology of the past; mankind was using fire over 1 million years ago, then humanity moved on to coal in the 1800s, shortly after that they moved into the age of petroleum, all these technologies have one thing in common carbon, it’s time to grasp the future and have the technological advantage of having low energy cost!
Isn’t it so very exhausting that we have to continually correct the lies and misrepresentations coming from the left. Difficult to engage with serial prevaricators
It is exhausting. The right does a bit of the same however. When this all first came up, right wing media repeatedly said we were energy independent under Trump. At the time I did not know that only meant we were a net exporter. The term is bit misleading. Also from what I understand becoming a net exporter was fueled in large part by the fracking boom that started in 2005 and regulatory changes in export rules. Don't know the details but I think Obama of all people implemented those. No doubt Trump loosened the regulatory atmosphere as well. The industry is so complicated, makes it difficult for laymen like me and most of us to grasp all the moving parts. But there are some fundamentals we can all understand. If someone takes the steps Biden has, it will undermine markets, financing and increase pricing. Ukraine is the shiny object he is hiding behind. Despicable.
Nope. We were energy independent and a barrel of oil was 40$. Through a variety of bad decisions Biden has helped drive the cost of a barrel of oil to 130$. Very good news for Putin, the Mullahs, and our friend Maduro. Bad news for Americans. You would have to ask Putin but his decision to invade was multi- factorial certainly aided by increased profits from selling oil.
Madjack, Indeed, what were the variety of bad decisions, and how did they force oil prices up? You say: “You would have to ask Putin…”, But then you tell me; “…his decision to invade was multi- factorial certainly aided by increased profits from selling oil.”, It seems to me I don’t have to ask Putin because you know! So you tell me, if you please, with a wee bit of specificity. I don’t have high expectations for a reply, but I could always be surprised!
As I understand it Biden has made a number of decisions limiting drilling and other aspects of oil exploration and recovery. You cannot be trying to so thoroughly gaslight me and everyone else that it isn’t a CLEAR AND STATED POLICY of the left to limit and end the use of fossil fuels. You people amaze me with your blatant lying and obfuscation
Just Me is one of the people "Elsa" in "1883" is specifically referencing when she says "The weak would rather guilt the strong than become strong themselves.". Of course, you can replace the word "guilt" with "shame", "gaslight", "destroy", etc...
But the fact remains - the weak in this country are unwilling to become strong and so seek to destroy everything they see as strong. And that is the strength that built the United States.
Madjack, you’re quite amazing; I state some facts and ask questions. You gaslight me in your reply. I asked questions about your response, and you came back and accused me of gaslighting, really! When did asking questions become gaslighting? On top of this, you have the gall to accuse me of lying and obfuscation by stating facts and asking questions. And all you do is state generalized platitudes with no evidence to back them up; talk about gaslighting!
Bruce, thank you for the apropos word, puerile; oftentimes, the replies I receive are; juvenile, childish, and sometimes downright silly. Apparently, you didn’t think my satirical reply of comparing a “wedgie” to “knickers in a twist” was very mature, as a say, different strokes for different folks.
Golfer, here’s the original post; if you want to discuss it, fine, but I won’t address your petty sniping!
Let me see if I get this reasoning right, Biden stopped the pipeline that would deliver less than 1% of the 88.4 million barrels per day in 2020 and lifted the sanctions on an incomplete pipeline to supply gas to Germany; this is the reason why Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, even though he had already invaded Ukraine eight years prior by annexing Crimea, where is the logic in this reasoning?
You are so right. The world has been in a warming period for the past 10,000 years with a very few brief periods of cooling (1250 to 1500 AD known as the Little Ice Age). The warming period has more to do with the Earth's axis and the Sun than anything humans have done.
Rather than worry about global warming and institute insane policies that will impoverish the world and do little else, we ought to do what we can to protect the oceans from over harvesting and pollution.
Closer to home Naomi I think we have to reform our election process otherwise we are doomed to hell these Democrats are taking us on the road to nowhere we have to change this
Of course you are right. Did you see what was discovered in Wisconsin and reported on this past week? Massive proven fraud funded by Zuckerbucks in 6 Wisconsin counties.
Yes was shocked beyond belief but not surprised I had just finished reading the chapter on ZuckBucks in a book called Rigged by Molly Hemingway she explains exactly how rigged voting took place with Big Tech funds also really worried about America if we allow this to happen again our elections are doomed we cannot allow Big Tech or Billionaires to buy our elections we are all worth way more than what transpired we have to fight back🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
These people have megabucks and all the technology at their disposal. They have the platforms in media and Big Tech to 1) destroy reputations and threaten people's livelihoods, and 2) control the narrative so that people can be easily fooled. They are not going to be so transparent in the next 2 elections. Not all the problems have been fixed by legislatures. The voting rolls have not been cleaned up and it will still be too easy to create fraudulent ballots. By the time the fraud is detected the election is over and, as we see, it takes YEARS to find some of the fraud.
There was an article published in Time that laid out the strategy used in the 2020 election.
Naomi, are you spreading misinformation intentionally?
“First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.”
Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.
It's not so simple. The climate is very complex with many things having an influence, including the amount of radiation from the sun, the Earth's orbit and inclination, the currents of water and air, clouds and perhaps cosmic rays and cosmic dust that affect their formation, and, yes, the greenhouse affect. And probably things we don't even know about yet. Very little is controlled by humans.
Dr. Judith Curry attempted a 15-minute summary of the state of climate science that is well worth reading.
There is a possibility of a finite supply of petroleum, plus the ever-increasing cost to extract the petroleum and, on top of that, the environmental damage done when extracting and transporting the petroleum. Fossil fuels received almost 6 trillion in subsidies in 2020. Add on top of that the health and environmental damage done by the industry.
There’s only one speculation in the above: there might not be a finite supply; with the folks you supply, there is much speculation.
So this breaks down into two choices:
1. this is a complex problem that will be needed to be studied further, and it will be hard to solve if it is a problem.
2. This is a problem, that we must address, even though there are difficulties.
One is betting that we have more than enough time. The other says we don’t; this is a bet on a large portion of the world’s population and how much they will suffer. Planet Earth will still be here, no matter what. The rich will have the resources to be comfortable, the rest of humanity won’t be so lucky.
And there is the possibility that it may be a problem beyond our control. We don't control the climate, we have to adapt to whatever it does.
One thing we should know for sure is that people suffer when deprived of affordable, reliable energy. We can see that around the world, and it appears we are going to see a lot more of it in the coming months.
Let's see if I get your reasoning correct; climate change is beyond our control, and besides that, additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will allow us to grow additional crops, faster.
Then, you make an assumption, that utilizing renewable energy will deprive a subset of people from affordable energy, based on what?
When you explain to me why people will be deprived of affordable energy, by using renewable energy, I want you to think hard long about transmission lines!
It seems to me that climate change is a real thing. It should surprise no one that 8 billion people are changing the planet, and climate scientists are in agreement about it. The problem is our leaders’ reaction to it. What it looks like to me is that politicians and businessmen saw an opportunity to exploit progressive concerns about the environment to suck up money. First, they manufactured consent through a steady drumbeat of apocalyptic news stories. Then, companies like Goldman Sachs created new markets for carbon trading they could use to generate new sources of commissions and fees, and businesses got fat subsidies for building wind and solar plants instead of building out fossil fuel and nuclear. None of this is actually solving climate change. But, it did make some people a lot of money, while weakening America’s energy infrastructure and its economic power. You can’t blame it all on climate change. I would blame it more on corruption and greed. It looks like no one thought this far ahead. Or, maybe they did and they didn’t care.
Oh lord, ppl cannot still be falling for this. For decades, they've been saying the end is near, this is gonna be under water, this ice cap will be gone. Etc. It never happens. We've been through this for at least 2 generations now. The same scam has played through snd ppl still fall for it? It is amazing.
Yes, the climate is changing. It always has, always does, and always will.
And no, climate scientists aren't "in agreement." There is never consensus in science. You just hear the ones whose voices are lifted and allowed becaus they have the right opinion...or paid for it. They agree it is changing, yes. But to the degree, why, and if it matters are what they do not agree on.
Exactly. That is not how science is supposed to work. It is all so politicized, it is disgusting. It's amazing to me how they keep reusing the same scheme and people still fall for it though.
It was easy to see from the over play of the plandemic that "Global Warming" is just a globalist Great Reset project. Bill Gates is the largest farmland owner in the US and is pushing fake meat. Four mega corporations own most of the brands you find in the Super Market today. Politicians are itching to make Al Gore money on the theory. They came off a great money making orgy with the plandemic.
Wake up people... we are at war with the Billionaire Boys Club that owns the media and most of the giant corporations and the globalist cabal. The theory of antropogenic climate change is absolutely not supported by real science even as it supported by "scientists" most with their hand in the cabal's cookie jar. These are giant political-media projects to brainwash liberals into supporting the policies that support the cabal.
The world has always experienced "climate change." There have been at least 4 major ice ages across North America. The ice sheets have formed, miles thick, then as the climate warmed, they melted, only to reform when the climate cooled. We have been in an interim warming period for the past 10,000 years.
Scientists agree that we contribute to climate change. There is no agreement that we cause climate change. That makes all the difference in the world, because if we contribute a little bit, it will go on no matter what we do. If we are the major cause of climate change, then we can stop climate change. Activists, politicians and eventually corporations embraced this rhetorical trick to get to their bottom line: "We can save the planet, all we have to do is (fill in the blank: buy my product, vote for me, fund my research, give more money to my organization, give more power to my agency, etc.)
What is desperately needed is open discussion to further understanding of the truth about climate. An iron censorship prevails on this subject, where scientists who do not parrot the orthodoxy cannot get their papers published, cannot get interviews, indeed likely will lose their jobs if not tenured. And, of course, the popular media simply will not report anything, even neutral factual research, unless it furthers the Narrative.
Climate change is a hoax and a 21st century scam the powers and the elites have captured us all giving a few scientists the permission to hold the rest of the world to ransom and now that we have Biden he thought he’d have a free run to 2024 to do what he wants with the world but it’s not exactly working out like that and his geriatric mind set is going to set us back years maybe even the rest of the 21st century Sadly 😢😢
Some of the problem is actually climate scientists and how the change in climate is being portrayed to the public. A good read on this problem is a book titled Unsettled, by Steven Koonin. And yes, greed is amplifying this problem.
Climate change is a given. Always. Where I live in CT was once buried under 1.5 miles of ice. It’s more pleasant now. Why it’s warming and what effect(if any) we are contributing is VERY unclear, to say the least. In most cases the cures pursued are worse then the purported disease
If I had to guess and put a second sentence after your first, I would have said you were going to call out Putin, Russia and Xi, China. But no, you went much bigger. And the ideologue progressives 🤮🤮🤮 will see to it that you are correct.
Even though the Biden administration has said it regards the Nord Stream 2 project as a threat to European energy security, they have approved it., while cancelling the Keystone pipeline between the USA and Canada. Biden waived sanctions against the German company constructing the pipeline and its top executives, drawing angry responses from members of Congress and disappointment from Ukraine and Poland.
Victoria Nuland (the queen of regime change in Ukraine in 2014) and others have defended the waivers, and said they can be rescinded at any time and that that threat actually gives the U.S. more leverage. REALLY NOW??? How anyone can defend this administration is beyond me. Victoria Nuland has promoted a foreign policy of intervention through coups, proxy wars, aggression, and ongoing occupations. The policy has been implemented with bloody and disastrous results in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
So much is true, in broad swaths of this beautifully written article. God is in the details, and I believe that Biden ending our energy independence and exportation was a massive blow to “world peace” —cutting us off at the knees. But not only did he axe Keystone, he pushed Nordstream 2, further empowering a despot. I believe history, if not sanitized beyond recognition, will prove this out.
Are we on the verge of melting into history? Not disappearing, just melting into the crowd? No longer The City on a Hill?
So, not sure what you mean by 'ending our energy independence and exportation.'
The last I looked, in November 2021, the US was exporting three million barrels of light sweet crude oil daily. As well, in 2021, 3500 oil drilling leases were given out by the Biden Administration on US public lands. America is not 'cut off at the knees.'
And as per Biden, he contributed to the delivery of Nordstream 2, yes (now axed, of course) but don't forget the leader who pushed for it to keep Russia economically aligned with Europe - Angela Merkel. She was the one who gave leverage to Putin by allowing Russia to supply up to forty per cent of Germany's energy. Her instincts, spectacularly wrong in hindsight, combined with Germany's green energy initiatives (misguided at best, catastrophic at worst) - will make her history's scapegoat.
You're right about Putin being the despot. He takes the prize.
So lots of blame to go around.
In 2019, United States energy production was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in sixty-two years. Therefore, when using that measurement, President Trump was correct in asserting that America was energy independent.
In 2019, the oil and gas industry increased the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in order to obtain crude oil; this was an increase by eleven percent. In 2019, total energy produced increased by 5.7 percent while demand decreased by 0.9 percent. The United States became a net exporter of energy that year. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. was the third-largest energy exporter in the world. This drove down prices for oil, gas, and natural gas, plus created 10 million jobs in domestic energy. The WSJ went on to discuss that technological innovation – a meeting of minds between the private sector, colleges, and the Energy Department’s national laboratories – made this energy exportation possible. Add to that that President Trump lifted decades-old bans on oil exportation, and energy independence was achieved.
Soon after Biden took office, the Energy Information Agency reported that the United States would begin importing more oil than it would export for 2021 and 2022. On January 27 of this year, Biden drafted an executive order largely affected the oil and gas industry. The order included the following guidelines:
Halted new oil and gas leases on federal onshore lands such as national parks and offshore waters (however, this did not affect tribal lands)
Directed the Secretary of the Interior to consider adjusting coal, oil and gas royalties to “account for corresponding climate costs” (i.e., the industry expected increased royalties)
Suspended new leases, contracts, or drilling permits for at least 60 days
Withdrew the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline
These policies have resulted in deep production cuts for companies in the U.S. Midwest gasoline stockpiles have dropped to one of their lowest levels since November 2014. By definition, we are no longer producing more energy than we consume, which is the chief reason we are no longer energy independent.
Clearly this is by design, no?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49596
So, you can take the above info or what you will. But the US remained a net exporter for at least the first half of 2021.
But in all due respect, even if America has now become a net importer of oil - is that a 'massive blow' to world peace? How exactly have we been cut off at the knees? If anyone has been cut it would be Germany (40% of their energy comes from Russia). Which I'm very sure they will rectify soon.
in my research we became a net importer before the end of the Trump administration. Not sure why the data is so variable. But no matter, neither then or now were we truly energy independent. We should be and we could be with a government dedicated to that principle. People like to laud Trump but our Russian oil imports actually went up under Trump at the same time our exports went up.
Yes, of course.
Progressives hate fossil fuels and don’t care about energy independence.
Let me see if I get this reasoning right, Biden stopped the pipeline that would deliver less than 1% of the 88.4 million barrels per day in 2020 and lifted the sanctions on an incomplete pipeline to supply gas to Germany; this is the reason why Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, even though he had already invaded Ukraine eight years prior by annexing Crimea, where is the logic in this reasoning?
I see that you have adopted the administrations talking points, Just me. Biden made it clear before the election that he would undermine the fossil fuel industry in an effort to combat emissions. He started that process on day 1 with revoking the permit for Keystone and limiting natural gas and oil leases on federal lands. That was just the beginning. Perhaps you have noticed that the markets react to regulatory and political actions which will impact their future? Perhaps you have also noticed that investors may shy away from projects that could get crushed or never get permitted? Then add to this mix that FERC tightened permit requirements DURING the current Ukraine crisis for gas pipelines that would make them even more difficult if not impossible to get approved. Even more frightening the NRC revoked extension permits for two nuclear power plants, one in Florida and one in PA. These extension permits had already been granted under the Trump administration. How do you think investors will react to that? Do you know how long and how much money it takes to get a nuclear power plant approved in this country? Are you aware that if we truly want to cut emissions and satisfy our current energy demand we must embrace nuclear? Are you aware that current renewable cannot possibly meet demand in this country and that turning off fossil fuels will undermine our economy and put our national security at risk? Are you aware that much of Europe is financing the killing of Ukrainians because they are totally dependent on Russian oil and gas since they turned off their own means of production in the name of climate change? Check out Germany's stats if want a view of our energy future under Biden. 36% of Russia's budget in 2021 was comprised of oil and gas profits. Yes oil and gas purchases are financing his invasion. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is almost complete. It will be a further economic boon to Putin enabling his to rape and pillage Ukraine. Biden green lighted it as did Germany.
Excellent Sue you have summed up FJB leadership and administration in one post now the big ? Is where to from here we are gripped in this climate change nonsense still gripped in the COVID pandemic and the Democrats still suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome it’s hectic
Yes that is the question plus how does the average citizen like myself contribute to the solution. To that end I am asking all of my liberal friends if they support Biden's energy policy and if so why. First I want to ensure that I understand the various sides of this argument. Plus are my sources correct? Am I the one who has been misguided? Simple logic would suggest no but in this messed up world where so many news sources on both sides are propaganda, it is important to question the underpinnings of ones own belief structure. Then I will start drafting letters for people to use to communicate with their representatives. The only thing we can do is create an upswell of pressure on this administration. If Biden and co continue to dig in to the detriment of this country, we may then come to the conclusion that climate is only a smokescreen. Not sure what else to do but we the people must do something.
Interestingly in my circle of liberal friends I have not found anyone who supports Biden's energy policy which is why I have begun engaging strangers such as Just me.
Don’t question yourself or try to change your liberal friends if they haven’t realized since March 2020 how bad the Democrats have been then believe me they are stuck in the climate crap + Covid that elites and Democrats have been peddling since then I wouldn’t waste my time with them but I’m with you on every point you have made in your previous posts
I have always found it is best to understand as many sides of an issue as possible to craft strategies forward. I have no illusions that I will change the minds of those who believe we should make an abrupt turn away from fossil fuel and nuclear just like I was unable to influence the lockdown zealots who also helped destabilize our country. My only goal is to influence the politicians, many of whom blow with the wind. Frankly the chances of success with that are slim to none but this is so important it is impossible to sit and watch it happen.
When the USSR put a 180-pound orb into space, it started advancements in science that were unimaginable. When Pres. Kennedy said: "We choose to go to the moon," because it was a national defense issue, even with this consideration, 58% of Americans public disagreed, not unlike conservatives attitude towards renewable energy, America has a choice, it can go where mankind has never gone before, or it can stay in the past, and risk widespread species extinction with the potential of human suffering similar to what is taking place in Ukraine.
Or we can transition as the technology becomes available. We can move full steam ahead on nuclear with a goal of true energy independence and zero carbon emissions as renewable technology evolves. Wishing that wind and solar could supply demand does not make it so. Doesn't logic dictate we maintain supply of fossil fuels until we have an alternate means of supply? Yet this administration is hampering the industry via regulation and executive order. And bizarrely they are doing the same to nuclear which makes me wonder if emissions is a smokescreen for another more nefarious goal. Once again I direct your attention to how well that strategy worked out for Germany and therefore Ukraine. Transitioning before demand can be met is an act of economic suicide and will undermine us from a national security point of view. Frankly it already has.
Sue, renewable energy is not only viable, but it will be cheaper, particularly when you consider, economies of scale, and I’ll repeat, we are the number one oil and gas producer in the world. You keep framing the issue as though there is some urgency for petroleum products, but there is not. There is an urgency for renewable energy. It’s a choice we can live in the past and condemn 1 million species to extinction, or we can live in the future and save the planet as we know it; it’s our choice!
Hopefully you will indulge a few questions, Just me! Do you believe renewables are already advanced enough to supply our current energy demand? Is your understanding that it is just a matter of money to get renewables in place? If there were an immediate unlimited checkbook, how long would it take to ramp up renewables so fossil fuels could be completely replaced? Are you in favor of nuclear? I do believe you are sincere and I want to understand the rationale behind your views. Thanks for engaging.
Hopefully, this gives you a better understanding of where I’m coming from. In the first half of 2018, Germany produced enough renewable electricity to power every household in the country for a year. Similarly, Denmark gets or half of its electricity from wind and solar power in 2017. The world has 10,000 times its total energy use ( 173,000 terawatts ) shining down each day. On top of this, if we replace fossil fuel with renewable energy, it will create over 5 million good-paying jobs by 2050. The estimated cost to replace carbon-based energy by 2050 is $7.8 trillion, or around $279 billion a year. The fossil fuel welfare subsidy is about $20 billion a year, but America has additional costs. There’s an additional subsidy; the International Monetary Fund estimated that the costs to the U.S. government from climate change, local air pollution impacts, and infrastructure damage not captured by energy taxes totaled $686 billion in 2015. The projected cost of climate change is roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. That would be in terms of 2021s US GDP of $22.99 trillion, a cool $275.88 billion, so it comes to this, we can spend $279 billion a year preventing the problem, or we can spend $275.88 billion a year treading water, excuse the pun, and get nothing for it.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/#:~:text=GERMANY,electricity%20from%20renewables%20by%202030.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-73-trillion
https://generation180.org/the-absurd-truth-about-fossil-fuel-subsidies/#:~:text=The%20high%20price%20of%20subsidies&text=A%20conservative%20estimate%20from%20Oil,billion%20in%20state%2Dlevel%20incentives.
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aal4369
Thanks Just Me. I have to do some more research but there is a notable gap between producing 100% of the energy that is needed vs storing it and transporting it via suitable grids to the customer base. From what I understand there is not a technological solution available to store the energy from wind and solar for a rainy day. Meanwhile Germany is dependent on Russia for oil and gas. I appreciate the cost comparisons you mentioned above and will dig into those numbers. There is logic to your argument on the financial side. But meanwhile Germany is dependent on Russia for oil and gas and has been forced to temper their response to Russia. Plus they are financing the killing of Ukrainians with their strategy. France on the other hand has pursued a different path with nuclear. I would rather the US emulate Frances strategy not Germany's. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Let me begin this conversation with giving the definition of disingenuous: lacking in candor or giving a false appearance of simple candor like your comment, “I do believe you are sincere and I want to understand the rationale behind your views. Thanks for engaging.” You were being calculated! In polite company, this is considered rude! If you wanted to engage in a conversation about nuclear energy, you could have been straightforward; instead, you chose subterfuge. Candidly, do people respect you for this type of behavior?
Wow. Nice attack. Your assumptions are incorrect. I had no interest in a conversation on nuclear per se. I would have thought I was crystal clear - my goal is true energy independence. How do we get there and maintain our economy, environment and national security without empowering predators like Putin? I engaged because I want to understand why anyone would ever support Biden's single focused energy policy which follows the German model. France chose a different path and actually achieved low emissions and independence. The wildly different results of the two countries strategies is notable don't you think? Worth an examination? Germany and other countries in Europe have blood on their hands for their short sighted stupidity. Sadly we will all pay the price for their grievous error.
I also want to understand so I can perhaps understand the politicians who seem hell bent on making things worse. How can I approach them if I don't understand how they could think that way. Interestingly that fact that you reverted to insults gave me the info I needed. In the future, perhaps it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions....
Going back to living with uncertain energy is NOT the future, it is definitely the past.
Madjack, you’re wedded to the technology of the past; mankind was using fire over 1 million years ago, then humanity moved on to coal in the 1800s, shortly after that they moved into the age of petroleum, all these technologies have one thing in common carbon, it’s time to grasp the future and have the technological advantage of having low energy cost!
Isn’t it so very exhausting that we have to continually correct the lies and misrepresentations coming from the left. Difficult to engage with serial prevaricators
It is exhausting. The right does a bit of the same however. When this all first came up, right wing media repeatedly said we were energy independent under Trump. At the time I did not know that only meant we were a net exporter. The term is bit misleading. Also from what I understand becoming a net exporter was fueled in large part by the fracking boom that started in 2005 and regulatory changes in export rules. Don't know the details but I think Obama of all people implemented those. No doubt Trump loosened the regulatory atmosphere as well. The industry is so complicated, makes it difficult for laymen like me and most of us to grasp all the moving parts. But there are some fundamentals we can all understand. If someone takes the steps Biden has, it will undermine markets, financing and increase pricing. Ukraine is the shiny object he is hiding behind. Despicable.
No logic at all it’s a chess game the human on the planet merely the pawns
Nope. We were energy independent and a barrel of oil was 40$. Through a variety of bad decisions Biden has helped drive the cost of a barrel of oil to 130$. Very good news for Putin, the Mullahs, and our friend Maduro. Bad news for Americans. You would have to ask Putin but his decision to invade was multi- factorial certainly aided by increased profits from selling oil.
Madjack, Indeed, what were the variety of bad decisions, and how did they force oil prices up? You say: “You would have to ask Putin…”, But then you tell me; “…his decision to invade was multi- factorial certainly aided by increased profits from selling oil.”, It seems to me I don’t have to ask Putin because you know! So you tell me, if you please, with a wee bit of specificity. I don’t have high expectations for a reply, but I could always be surprised!
As I understand it Biden has made a number of decisions limiting drilling and other aspects of oil exploration and recovery. You cannot be trying to so thoroughly gaslight me and everyone else that it isn’t a CLEAR AND STATED POLICY of the left to limit and end the use of fossil fuels. You people amaze me with your blatant lying and obfuscation
Just Me is one of the people "Elsa" in "1883" is specifically referencing when she says "The weak would rather guilt the strong than become strong themselves.". Of course, you can replace the word "guilt" with "shame", "gaslight", "destroy", etc...
But the fact remains - the weak in this country are unwilling to become strong and so seek to destroy everything they see as strong. And that is the strength that built the United States.
Madjack, you’re quite amazing; I state some facts and ask questions. You gaslight me in your reply. I asked questions about your response, and you came back and accused me of gaslighting, really! When did asking questions become gaslighting? On top of this, you have the gall to accuse me of lying and obfuscation by stating facts and asking questions. And all you do is state generalized platitudes with no evidence to back them up; talk about gaslighting!
Seems that a bit of pushback has your little knickers in a twist. And you wonder why you're ridiculed and mocked.
My knickers are just fine; please accept my apologies if it gave you a wedgie when I addressed Madjack!
Puerile.
Bruce, thank you for the apropos word, puerile; oftentimes, the replies I receive are; juvenile, childish, and sometimes downright silly. Apparently, you didn’t think my satirical reply of comparing a “wedgie” to “knickers in a twist” was very mature, as a say, different strokes for different folks.
Golfer, here’s the original post; if you want to discuss it, fine, but I won’t address your petty sniping!
Let me see if I get this reasoning right, Biden stopped the pipeline that would deliver less than 1% of the 88.4 million barrels per day in 2020 and lifted the sanctions on an incomplete pipeline to supply gas to Germany; this is the reason why Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, even though he had already invaded Ukraine eight years prior by annexing Crimea, where is the logic in this reasoning?
''EXTRA! Extra! Read all about it: the United States is an oil exporter!
The best thing to do to stop Putin would be to go back to Trump's energy policy.
More than that the best thing to do is go back to President Trump this mess will stop immediately 🇺🇸🇺🇸
The current U.S. President governs as if compromised.
No surprise, considering his and his son’s history with Russia, China, Ukraine, etc. How could he not be compromised?
We are embracing a dangerous ideology which will cost many lives. Many will suffer and die at the altar of climate change(and NOT FROM climate change)
It's an ideology promoted by the same crowd who would have us believe that a woman can have a penis and a man can give birth
You are so right. The world has been in a warming period for the past 10,000 years with a very few brief periods of cooling (1250 to 1500 AD known as the Little Ice Age). The warming period has more to do with the Earth's axis and the Sun than anything humans have done.
Rather than worry about global warming and institute insane policies that will impoverish the world and do little else, we ought to do what we can to protect the oceans from over harvesting and pollution.
Closer to home Naomi I think we have to reform our election process otherwise we are doomed to hell these Democrats are taking us on the road to nowhere we have to change this
Of course you are right. Did you see what was discovered in Wisconsin and reported on this past week? Massive proven fraud funded by Zuckerbucks in 6 Wisconsin counties.
Yes was shocked beyond belief but not surprised I had just finished reading the chapter on ZuckBucks in a book called Rigged by Molly Hemingway she explains exactly how rigged voting took place with Big Tech funds also really worried about America if we allow this to happen again our elections are doomed we cannot allow Big Tech or Billionaires to buy our elections we are all worth way more than what transpired we have to fight back🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
These people have megabucks and all the technology at their disposal. They have the platforms in media and Big Tech to 1) destroy reputations and threaten people's livelihoods, and 2) control the narrative so that people can be easily fooled. They are not going to be so transparent in the next 2 elections. Not all the problems have been fixed by legislatures. The voting rolls have not been cleaned up and it will still be too easy to create fraudulent ballots. By the time the fraud is detected the election is over and, as we see, it takes YEARS to find some of the fraud.
There was an article published in Time that laid out the strategy used in the 2020 election.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Naomi, are you spreading misinformation intentionally?
“First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.”
Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
It's not so simple. The climate is very complex with many things having an influence, including the amount of radiation from the sun, the Earth's orbit and inclination, the currents of water and air, clouds and perhaps cosmic rays and cosmic dust that affect their formation, and, yes, the greenhouse affect. And probably things we don't even know about yet. Very little is controlled by humans.
Dr. Judith Curry attempted a 15-minute summary of the state of climate science that is well worth reading.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/03/15-minutes/#more-27827
And Dr. Roy Spencer has a somewhat longer explanation of the basics here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
There is a possibility of a finite supply of petroleum, plus the ever-increasing cost to extract the petroleum and, on top of that, the environmental damage done when extracting and transporting the petroleum. Fossil fuels received almost 6 trillion in subsidies in 2020. Add on top of that the health and environmental damage done by the industry.
There’s only one speculation in the above: there might not be a finite supply; with the folks you supply, there is much speculation.
So this breaks down into two choices:
1. this is a complex problem that will be needed to be studied further, and it will be hard to solve if it is a problem.
2. This is a problem, that we must address, even though there are difficulties.
One is betting that we have more than enough time. The other says we don’t; this is a bet on a large portion of the world’s population and how much they will suffer. Planet Earth will still be here, no matter what. The rich will have the resources to be comfortable, the rest of humanity won’t be so lucky.
There is also the possibility that it is not a problem at all. Humanity may benefit from a somewhat warmer climate.
https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate3004
https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2995
And there is the possibility that it may be a problem beyond our control. We don't control the climate, we have to adapt to whatever it does.
One thing we should know for sure is that people suffer when deprived of affordable, reliable energy. We can see that around the world, and it appears we are going to see a lot more of it in the coming months.
Let's see if I get your reasoning correct; climate change is beyond our control, and besides that, additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will allow us to grow additional crops, faster.
Then, you make an assumption, that utilizing renewable energy will deprive a subset of people from affordable energy, based on what?
When you explain to me why people will be deprived of affordable energy, by using renewable energy, I want you to think hard long about transmission lines!
First paragraph, you have it.
Second paragraph:
In print: https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy
Or on video: https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar?utm_campaign=50f21f798c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_09_06_29_COPY_01&utm_source=Main%20Mailing%20List&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f90832343d-50f21f798c-158108605
Do you somehow think electricity generated by wind mills or solar farms doesn't need transmission lines?
Oh, wait a minute, let me do some cherry-picking too. Typical conservative, the glass is half empty!
https://www.prysmiangroup.com/en/insight/sustainability/can-renewable-energy-sources-replace-fossil-fuels#:~:text=The%20short%20answer%3A%20yes.,need%20is%20growing%20more%20urgent.
https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy
Imagine that: the government telling us that the government is right.
👏🏻🤣
It’s absolute crap can’t see the Arabs giving up their oil
It seems to me that climate change is a real thing. It should surprise no one that 8 billion people are changing the planet, and climate scientists are in agreement about it. The problem is our leaders’ reaction to it. What it looks like to me is that politicians and businessmen saw an opportunity to exploit progressive concerns about the environment to suck up money. First, they manufactured consent through a steady drumbeat of apocalyptic news stories. Then, companies like Goldman Sachs created new markets for carbon trading they could use to generate new sources of commissions and fees, and businesses got fat subsidies for building wind and solar plants instead of building out fossil fuel and nuclear. None of this is actually solving climate change. But, it did make some people a lot of money, while weakening America’s energy infrastructure and its economic power. You can’t blame it all on climate change. I would blame it more on corruption and greed. It looks like no one thought this far ahead. Or, maybe they did and they didn’t care.
Oh lord, ppl cannot still be falling for this. For decades, they've been saying the end is near, this is gonna be under water, this ice cap will be gone. Etc. It never happens. We've been through this for at least 2 generations now. The same scam has played through snd ppl still fall for it? It is amazing.
Yes, the climate is changing. It always has, always does, and always will.
And no, climate scientists aren't "in agreement." There is never consensus in science. You just hear the ones whose voices are lifted and allowed becaus they have the right opinion...or paid for it. They agree it is changing, yes. But to the degree, why, and if it matters are what they do not agree on.
If you don’t agree it’s changing your scientific career is over
Exactly. That is not how science is supposed to work. It is all so politicized, it is disgusting. It's amazing to me how they keep reusing the same scheme and people still fall for it though.
It was easy to see from the over play of the plandemic that "Global Warming" is just a globalist Great Reset project. Bill Gates is the largest farmland owner in the US and is pushing fake meat. Four mega corporations own most of the brands you find in the Super Market today. Politicians are itching to make Al Gore money on the theory. They came off a great money making orgy with the plandemic.
Wake up people... we are at war with the Billionaire Boys Club that owns the media and most of the giant corporations and the globalist cabal. The theory of antropogenic climate change is absolutely not supported by real science even as it supported by "scientists" most with their hand in the cabal's cookie jar. These are giant political-media projects to brainwash liberals into supporting the policies that support the cabal.
Brilliant reply Frank if you were running for President I would vote for you - you know exactly what is going down
The world has always experienced "climate change." There have been at least 4 major ice ages across North America. The ice sheets have formed, miles thick, then as the climate warmed, they melted, only to reform when the climate cooled. We have been in an interim warming period for the past 10,000 years.
👏🏻👏🏻
Scientists agree that we contribute to climate change. There is no agreement that we cause climate change. That makes all the difference in the world, because if we contribute a little bit, it will go on no matter what we do. If we are the major cause of climate change, then we can stop climate change. Activists, politicians and eventually corporations embraced this rhetorical trick to get to their bottom line: "We can save the planet, all we have to do is (fill in the blank: buy my product, vote for me, fund my research, give more money to my organization, give more power to my agency, etc.)
What is desperately needed is open discussion to further understanding of the truth about climate. An iron censorship prevails on this subject, where scientists who do not parrot the orthodoxy cannot get their papers published, cannot get interviews, indeed likely will lose their jobs if not tenured. And, of course, the popular media simply will not report anything, even neutral factual research, unless it furthers the Narrative.
Climate change is a hoax and a 21st century scam the powers and the elites have captured us all giving a few scientists the permission to hold the rest of the world to ransom and now that we have Biden he thought he’d have a free run to 2024 to do what he wants with the world but it’s not exactly working out like that and his geriatric mind set is going to set us back years maybe even the rest of the 21st century Sadly 😢😢
To regulatory capture we have added corporate media capture and Science capture. Tough to seek the truth
Some of the problem is actually climate scientists and how the change in climate is being portrayed to the public. A good read on this problem is a book titled Unsettled, by Steven Koonin. And yes, greed is amplifying this problem.
Koonin's book is excellent!
Yes, he also did a podcast with Joe Rogan.
"Climate Change" is the new home of Marxism. It is a way to gain control over the masses.
👍
Climate change is a given. Always. Where I live in CT was once buried under 1.5 miles of ice. It’s more pleasant now. Why it’s warming and what effect(if any) we are contributing is VERY unclear, to say the least. In most cases the cures pursued are worse then the purported disease
If I had to guess and put a second sentence after your first, I would have said you were going to call out Putin, Russia and Xi, China. But no, you went much bigger. And the ideologue progressives 🤮🤮🤮 will see to it that you are correct.
Even though the Biden administration has said it regards the Nord Stream 2 project as a threat to European energy security, they have approved it., while cancelling the Keystone pipeline between the USA and Canada. Biden waived sanctions against the German company constructing the pipeline and its top executives, drawing angry responses from members of Congress and disappointment from Ukraine and Poland.
Victoria Nuland (the queen of regime change in Ukraine in 2014) and others have defended the waivers, and said they can be rescinded at any time and that that threat actually gives the U.S. more leverage. REALLY NOW??? How anyone can defend this administration is beyond me. Victoria Nuland has promoted a foreign policy of intervention through coups, proxy wars, aggression, and ongoing occupations. The policy has been implemented with bloody and disastrous results in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Yip you right I have all my rights to - life in America is good 🇺🇸🇺🇸