On Monday, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ordered a “code red,” releasing another “landmark” report warning that global warming was an existential threat to humanity, that humans were “unequivocally” to blame for the problem, and that if rapid action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions is not taken, our grandchildren are doomed to a fiery end.
“What the IPCC told us is what President Biden has believed all along,” Jen Psaki noted on Tuesday. “Climate change is an urgent threat that requires bold action.”
On Wednesday, the Biden administration released a statement imploring the OPEC cartel to increase production of oil to help lower worldwide gas prices.
“Higher gasoline costs,” the White House admits, “if left unchecked, risk harming the ongoing global recovery.”
The WH wants OPEC to go above the 400,000-barrels-per-day increase it already promised to implement, which doesn’t seem to jibe with the notion that we are on the precipice of the apocalypse.
As an economic matter, of course, the request makes total sense — by pressuring exporters to pump more oil, a fungible commodity, we lower costs worldwide.
Even though technology continues to create efficiencies that lower emissions, modernity relies heavily on affordable and reliable energy.
Economies would collapse without it. And for emerging nations, affordable fossil fuel remains a prerequisite for lifting billions of people out of poverty.
As a political matter, it might seem odd, to say the least, that Biden is imploring foreign nations to increase supply.
Firstly, such a position runs contrary to virtually every “green” plan in existence — almost all of which intentionally, through mandates or bans or taxes or contrived “markets,” exist to make fossil fuels more expensive and reduce use.
Clean-energy advocates, including the president, argue that, in the aggregate, going green would be an economic plus. But if slightly higher prices threaten the world’s economic health, what would complete weaning from fossil fuels do to the economy?
Biden has promised a “100 percent clean-energy economy” with “net-zero emissions” in only a few decades. Without some technological miracle, this is a fantastical, not to mention suicidal, goal.
The reality is that Biden couldn’t go a year in office without pleading with oilocracies to hike production. In his defense, one assumes, people will point out that COVID presents a historically unique situation.
As far as the economics of recovery go, not really. In fact, this man-made downturn should be easier to mend than most. And this is certainly not the last recession or downturn or pandemic or world event that is going to affect the energy market.
Though it’s probably an unpopular position, I’d be content importing cheap oil or allowing others to flood the market, while saving our own supply for a time when new drilling becomes more economically feasible.
But the hypocrisy of all this is that Biden works to restrict energy trade only in North America.
Earlier this year, the president rescinded oil- and gas-lease sales from most of the nation’s massive state-owned lands and waters, citing climate change as the reason.
He then shut down the Keystone XL, revoking a permit that was needed to build a 1,200-mile project that would have carried around 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta oil-sands crude into the United States — probably more than enough to avoid begging OPEC for oil — again, citing climate change as the reason.
Read rest at NRO
Trackback from your site.
Credit: Source link