Whatever platforms Joe Biden ran on during his 2020 basement campaign for president, not once did he or his hapless running mate, Kamala Harris, say they sought to completely change our mode of transportation and neuter the fossil fuel industry.
Yes, they made some mention of “green energy,” of course, like all Democrats do, but neither Biden nor Harris vowed to conspire against the gas-powered engine in favor of forcing all Americans to rely on expensive electric vehicles. And yet, the next thing we know, one automaker after another is announcing they will either reduce their inventories of vehicles with internal combustion engines (good-bye, American V-8) or stop making gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles altogether.
The result so far has been a tripling of gasoline prices so far (intentional) amid a vow by the Biden regime to raise the minimum gas mileage requirement for new-production vehicles to a nearly unattainable 49 mpg by 2026. Again, Biden and Harris did not campaign on this, so they kept this part of their agenda hidden.
At the same time, ‘woke’ investors have been moving the country away from reliable, plentiful and inexpensive fossil fuels in their pursuit of renewable energy that is far less reliable and much more expensive to produce, at least for now. These steps are similar to what the Germans have done over the past two decades, with policies that have left the country wholly reliant on Russian fossil fuels for their survival. And these investment groups are now essentially making our energy policy, which is endangering our national security.
As the West grapples with the energy implications of a hostile Sino-Russian alliance, the steering group of the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, whose members manage over $10.4 trillion of assets, issued a statement urging Western governments not to sacrifice climate goals for energy security.
“The world is still heading for an excess of fossil fuel-based energy use that will vastly exceed the carbon budget needed to meet the 1.5° Celsius Paris agreement goal. This trend must be halted,” the United Nations-backed alliance said in its April 8 statement, further stating that “the national security argument for accelerating the net-zero transition has strengthened considerably.”
Just what is the standing of asset managers to wax on about national security issues, since they have no expertise in this policy field? None, of course, and as RCE notes, these people are also wrong about the economics of energy policy:
The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance claims that development of new oil and gas reserves will lock in fossil fuel subsidies, exacerbating market distortions. In fact, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its 2021 net-zero report states that under its net-zero pathway, tax revenues from oil and gas retail sales fall by about 40% over the next twenty years.
In addition, “Britain’s Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that net zero policies will result in the loss of tax receipts representing 1.6 percent of GDP,” RCE notes — all of which means that there are no subsidy offsets; if these countries were heavily subsidizing their fossil fuel industries, then those would disappear, not tax revenues.
What’s more, these investors do not have the responsibility for keeping the power grid supplied and ensuring that the heat, air and lights remain on for citizens: That duty falls to politicians. The investors won’t get the blame when the grid fails or when people can’t heat or cool their homes and businesses due to the intermittency of ‘green energy’ like wind and solar, which are literally weather-dependent (fossil fuels are not); the politicians will, even though they aren’t able to exercise full control over energy policy.
The fact is, our most reliable standards of living and modes of transportation are being taken away from us by woke corporate ‘green energy’ investment firms that have no right or mandate to do so, regardless of their intentions. It’s time our political leaders intervened with policies of their own that foster reliable, cheaper fossil fuel energy development instead.
Energy production can and should be multifaceted. We can’t completely shun the most reliable form of it, or we put our nation and our people at risk.
Sources include:Submit a correction >>