Category: Energy

People are stupid…

… and taxpayers doubly so.

Queen Kathy of New York has seen fit to charge fossil fuel companies for being “major polluters”. She goes on to state:

“For too long New Yorkers have borne the costs of the climate crisis, which is impacting every part of the state.”

Never mind that the energy companies she seeks to penalized are producing exactly what the customers desire – fuel to power their cars, heat their homes, and run their televisions. Never mind that the energy companies are not burning the fuel and generating the “climate crisis” of which Hochul speaks; no, that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the people who are demanding and using the energy.

So why is Hochul not blaming global warning on the people actually burning the fuel – i.e., the consumer? Oh, wait – she is! She’s just not telling them. Just who do you think will pay these new fees – the oil executives? Their stock holders? Or the consumer? Yeah; that’s what I think, too.

Such laws always seem to tout a dubious public good, ex: for the children, for the environment, for the homeless, etc. But in reality these laws are nothing more than a “stupid tax” to fuel a slush fund for political pet projects, financed by people far too stupid to realize that it is they who are footing the bill. You’d think people would have learned from California’s treatment of PG&E (Remember the wildfire costs levied against PG&E, leading to some of the highest energy costs in the nation?).

In the words of Forrest Trump [sic]: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Are you kidding me?

The U.S. emergency oil stash is in the spotlight as gas prices surge. What to know

OK; so let’s see if I have this correct: Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline, ostensibly as a means to force people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Now he is considering  releasing oil from the strategic reserve because – well – we didn’t reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and now we’re in a pickle.

So riddle me this, Batman – does it really matter whether we’re burning oil from the strategic reserve or oil supplied by a strategic partner via a pipeline? After all, we’re still burning oil. And why not build the pipeline while working to reduce consumer demand instead of killing it entirely? At least then we’d have a friendly source of oil if our efforts fell short, and at no cost to the American people.

Dumb ass.

Uh… what??

From a recent NPR article relaying Energy Secretary Graham’s thoughts on “needed” changes to the energy grid:

She said it may make sense for the state’s famously independent energy infrastructure to be connected to the national grid “in some way, shape or form that allows its neighbors to help” in an emergency. “We all plan for redundancies and backups in our lives and this might be just a backup that Texas might want to consider at this time.”

They’re talking about Texas. Only the Texas grid is independent precisely to avoid empire … uh, federal… entanglements. If they connect to other grids then the Texas system will fall under federal regulatory control – not something Texans are too keen to allow (and I don’t blame them). If I were to guess, I’d say the lack of Sith … uh, federal… control over the Texas grid (the only state-run independent grid in the nation) is irritating the new Energy Secretary. Biden’s administration might run into issues with their death star … uh, green energy … plan if they can’t regulate all energy production and distribution. Besides, Jar Jar Binks needs a job, and micro-managing the Texas grid might just be his calling.

Here’s another interesting tidbit from the same article:

Critics have also attacked the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy as prohibitively expensive. But a recent analysis by the World Resources Institute found that investing in clean energy generates more jobs than investing in fossil fuels due to the more labor-intensive nature of today’s clean energy systems.

Uh… doesn’t more jobs – and thus more employees –  for the “…more labor-intensive nature of … clean energy systems…” mean that clean energy must be more expensive? I find it fascinating that NPR can counter a claim by confirming it!

Note: I am for transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, even if it increases our energy costs. However, increasing the costs of U.S. energy sources will force energy-intensive U.S. production to be moved to countries with lower-cost (and likely more polluting) energy. Eliminating production here (where we at least have some control over pollution) in favor of cheaper production in China (where we have no control) hardly seems prudent. Yet this is the result a Paris Accord that permits different levels of polluting for different countries.

In our transition to clean energy we must hold our trading partners to the same environmental standards that we apply to ourselves. The idea that newer, less-developed countries should be allowed to pollute in an effort to “catch up” is simply ludicrous, particularly given the global impact of air and sea pollution. We do everything we can to discourage new nuclear development due to the dangers associated; given the dangers of global warming, shouldn’t we do the same for the use of fossil fuels?

Read more about this impact of the Paris Climate Accord here, here and here.

Cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline is the wrong answer

President Biden cancelled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline in one of his first executive orders. This was a knee-jerk reaction by liberals to a Trump-supported project and a poor decision on the part of President Biden.

The Keystone XL pipeline project would have been a source for thousands of American jobs. In addition, it would have ensured that America – if we were slow in our move to clean energy – maintained a conventional source of energy from a trusted ally and partner. Finally, the refusal to honor a prior permit – regardless of by whom it was approved – places doubt on the security of any future permits; this will increase the perceived risk of investing in large American infrastructure projects that require federal-level approval.

A better option for our country would have been to let it go forward, but make it pointless by accelerating the new administration’s move to clean energy. In this way we’d have the jobs building the XL pipeline until the green energy infrastructure and jobs materialized, and a backup energy source from an ally in the mean time. While this would have been detrimental to Keystone pipeline investors (the value of the pipeline would plummet if green energy goals were met ahead of schedule), that’s a legitimate risk investors take – not the risk that different administrations would alternate between approval and cancellation of their project.

Smooth move, Mr. President. Thanks for caving to the “green” police. I hope the labor unions don’t eat you alive…