The country’s coalition government is preparing to invite energy companies to resume exploration in the three major offshore fields that supply most of its gas.
It comes after National Grid operator Transpower was last month forced to warn families to limit their electricity usage to avoid a shutdown during a cold snap.
The decision to reverse the ban, made by resources minister Shane Jones, will be a setback for green activists and likely to be regarded as a blow for Labour after Ed Miliband has repeatedly pledged to halt new drilling for oil and gas in UK waters.
Brazil’s prosperity hinges on its capacity to harness the foundational element of any economy: energy. However, for millions of Brazilians, the path to economic advancement is complicated by the hypocritical “green” agendas of leaders in developed economies that have benefited from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial era.
As an Indian and someone with shared developmental interests in the BRICS economic bloc, I have been gratified by the hydrocarbon-driven growth of India to a $3.7 trillion economy over the past two decades. Other developing countries like India have transformed their economic despair to promising futures through the unhindered use of fossil fuels. Brazil’s future — now clouded by pressures to abandon coal, oil and natural gas — should be no different.
Fossil Fuels are the Keystone of Flourishing Economies
The wealth of Europe and North America is undoubtedly linked to the strategic use of fossil fuels. Since the 1950s, the transformative power of oil, gas, and coal has propelled manufacturing industries into a new era, culminating in the elevated quality of life enjoyed in the modern world.
With an estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of around $2.1 trillion, Brazil’s economy is on par with those of Russia and India — two other founding members of BRICS. In the context of Brazil’s policy planning, India is particularly relevant because of the countries’ similar challenges with poverty.
India’s GDP has undergone a meteoric rise, increasing from a modest $470 billion in 2000 to a staggering $3.7 trillion today.
How did this remarkable growth come about? The answer lies primarily in India’s bold approach to energy utilization, fully harnessing local coal reserves and becoming one of the world’s largest importers of oil and gas. In addition, with a deadline of 2070, India has the longest timeline of any country for achieving the Net Zero commitment of moving away from fossil fuels. And the country has made no categorical promise of meeting the objective.
Brazil’s Energy Pathway Should Be No Different
Brazil must adopt a similarly pragmatic approach. Currently, about 60% of the country’s electricity comes from Brazil’s abundant hydroelectric sources. Coal, oil, and gas together constitute only 10% of electricity. However, when it comes to total primary energy consumption, fossil fuels constitute about half and hydroelectric just under a third.
These are significant contributions from reliable sources, but Brazil is far from achieving universal access to affordable energy.
A 2022 study found that “11% of households still live in conditions of energy poverty, and in rural areas this number reaches 16%.” Households with adequate energy supplies had incomes at least twice of those in energy poverty. Clearly, energy will be critical not just for growth of national GDP but also for the socio-economic improvement of individual families.
When Lula Da Silva became President in 2023, he declared that he would reverse his predecessor’s cuts to Brazil’s ambitious climate targets, renewing an emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and signaling a rejection of fossil fuels. Brazil’s 2016 plan was to have 2030 emissions be 43% of 2005 levels. This has now been increased under Lula to 51%.
Lula’s new policy has not had a major impact on the nation’s oil sector yet. Petrobras, the state-controlled oil company, may ascend to the position of the third-largest oil producer globally by 2030, only behind Saudi Arabia and Iran. In December, Brazil auctioned off more than 602 lots for oil and gas exploitation. Experts believe it would be impossible for Lula to reduce fossil fuel dependency without missing goals to alleviate poverty.
For Brazil, the plan for economic growth is straightforward: Improve existing hydroelectric power systems, continue with expansion of the oil sector, and remove obstructions to the free flow of reliable and dependable coal supplies.
President Lula and future Brazilian leaders must resist the pressure of influential anti-fossil fuel lobby groups located in Washington, D.C., New York and Brussels if the country is to make any meaningful economic progress. The nearly 61 million Brazilians living on less than $6.85 a day deserve nothing less.
This commentary was first published at Real Clear Markets on May 27, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
Numerous Democrats who have helped the Biden administration restrict fossil fuel development and production are now concerned about high gas prices as the 2024 elections loom.
A group of 23 Senate Democrats — including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Massachusetts Sen. Liz Warren and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey — signed a Thursday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking him to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate major energy companies for allegedly colluding to raise gas prices for Americans and fatten their bottom lines. The suggestion that oil companies are illegally collaborating to rip off American consumers is notnew to Democrats, who have revived the narrative as prices at the pump tick up ahead of the 2024 elections.
“The federal government must use every tool to prevent and prosecute collusion and price fixing that may have increased gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel costs in a way that has materially harmed virtually every American household and business,” the letter states. “We therefore urge the Department of Justice to investigate the oil industry, to hold accountable any liable actors, and to end any illegal activities.” (RELATED: Democrats Up Pressure On Big Oil To Answer For Alleged Profiteering As Americans Blame Biden For Gas Prices)
The letter references ExxonMobil’s recent acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources and amplifies the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) allegation that Chris Sheffield, the founder and ex-CEO of Pioneer, tried to organize collusion between American and OPEC energy producers to artificially inflate profits. Sheffield, however, has strongly contested this allegation, saying that the “FTC is wrong to imply that [he] ever engaged in, promoted or even suggested any form of anti-competitive behavior” in a statement.
Beyond Warren, Schumer and Casey, other signatories include Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Each Senator who signed the letter also voted for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s flagship climate bill, and have also supported many other facets of the Biden administration’s efforts to move the U.S. away from fossil fuels.
Warren’s voting record has earned her a 95% lifetime approval score from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), one of the country’s largest influential environmental groups that openly rejects fossil fuels, and a 100% score for 2023. Last year, Warren voted against an attempt to rein in the government’s push to regulate a wide array of consumer appliances, a bill promoting the Mountain Valley Pipeline and to protect a Labor Department rule pushing asset managers to incorporate climate risks in their investment decisions.
Casey voted in favor of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but joined Warren on the other two votes. He also voted against a 2022 effort to increase the number of government-issued oil lease sales and opposed another 2022 move that would have prevented federal permitting or regulatory actions from hindering fossil fuel development.
Schumer also voted to support the Mountain Valley Pipeline in 2023, but he has voted in line with what LCV advised in every other instance since Biden took office in 2021, with one exception. He has opposed four legislatives proposals that would have made it easier or less expensive to produce oil and gas throughout Biden’s first term.
Murphy voted against the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and also opposed legislation that would have increased offshore and onshore oil and gas development.
Whitehouse voted against the Mountain Valley Pipeline, as well as numerous legislative efforts to enhance oil and gas leasing activity. Markey, meanwhile, has consistently voted against legislation intended to make it easier to produce oil and gas for his entire career.
Brown voted to support the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but he has opposed four initiatives meant to boost oil drilling through Biden’s first term. Sanders, one of the most left-wing lawmakers in Washington, also voted against the four same legislative efforts and has consistently opposed bills designed to make drilling easier throughout his career.
Gas prices are increasing as the pivotal 2024 elections approach on the calendar. In January, the national average per-gallon price of all formulations of gasoline was approximately $3.08, a figure that has increased to $3.60 as of May, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The administration is moving to release about one million barrels of gasoline from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve to try to bring down prices this summer. The administration also released 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) ahead of the 2022 midterms, selling several million barrels to Chinese companies and leaving the SPR at its lowest levels in decades.
The administration has made many decisions that restrict domestic oil and gasproduction, pushed aggressiveenvironmentalregulations impacting energy producers and established massive subsidy programs to favor sources of green energy like wind and solar. These choices have the combined effect of driving up prices that consumers pay at the pump and elsewhere over time, according to the American Energy Alliance, a right-leaning energy advocacy group.
In January 2020, just before the onset of the pandemic, Americans paid an average of $2.55 per gallon for all types of gas, according to the EIA. Those figures have grown considerably since November 2020, the month that President Joe Biden won the presidential election; the average price sat at $3.61 per gallon in April 2024 after peaking at $4.92 in June 2022.
Democrats pushed similar messaging about major energy companies and collusion in 2022, when gas prices were causing political headaches for Biden and fellow Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. However, analysts from the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve argued at the time that corporate collusion was not one of the factors driving up retail gasoline costs, pointing out that energy producers actually have almost zero control over the prices set by gas station operators.
The offices of Schumer, Warren, Casey, Brown, Murphy, Durbin, Whitehouse and Sanders did not respond to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
UNITED STATES – JANUARY 31: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speaks during the news conference to oppose the chained Consumer Price Index to cut benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans on Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
Big oil has privately acknowledged its efforts to downplay the dangers of burning fossil fuels, US Democrats have found.
Major fossil-fuel firms have also pledged support for international climate efforts, but internally admit these efforts are incompatible with their own climate plans. And they have lobbied against climate laws and regulations they have publicly claimed to support, documents newly revealed by the committee show.
The tranche of subpoenaed communications were unveiled on Tuesday morning by Democrats on the House oversight committee before a Wednesday hearing.
“For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has known about the economic and climate harms of its products but has deceived the American public to keep collecting more than $600bn each year in subsidies while raking in record-breaking profits,” said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the committee.
…
In a 2019 memo to the CEO, for instance, an Exxon official suggested removing reference to the Paris accord from a document because referencing it “could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris agreement goals”.
And in February 2020, BP announced plans to become a net zero emissions company by 2050 or sooner and to “help the world get to net zero”. Private emails sent months before, however, indicate that company top brass may have doubted that goal was achievable.
The demand for a halt to oil and gas exploration is contained in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s committee report.
… Perhaps most telling, despite its previous statements supportive of the Paris Agreement, BP’s CEO announced earlier this year that the company would increase oil and gas production from 2024 through 2027, citing increased global demand for energy.94 The increase in production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Scientists are clear that to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately. 95 MSCI found in its “Implied Temperature Rise” ratings that, if BP’s business plan was extrapolated to the global economy, the world would warm 3.1°C—similar to Exxon’s and Chevron’s ratings and well above Paris Agreement targets.96 The documents, actions, and analyses suggest that BP’s stated commitment to the Paris Agreement is not credible.
Like its peer companies, Shell also first expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015 and now claims that it “supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit the rise in global average temperature this century to 1.5° Celsius. ”97 However, MSCI still estimates that, if extrapolated across the economy, Shell’s activities would be consistent with 2.3°C of warming.98 In 2021, Shell promised to undertake a gradual decline of about 1–2 % a year in total oil production through 2030, including divestments.99 Then, last summer, Shell announced plans to boost fossil fuel production. 100 It now states that oil and gas production will remain stable until 2030 and that it will invest $40 billion in fossil fuel production between 2023 and 2035.101 Shell’s current oil and gas expansion plans are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Despite originally pledging to reach net zero by 2050 for its total emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement, Shell now concedes that the “2050 target is ‘currently outside our planning period.’”102Read more: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf
Senator Whitehouse does make some valid points. I’m pretty disappointed by the behaviour of some oil companies, their weak mismanagement of this political confrontation with Democrats is doing nobody any good.
Whitehouse claims that Shell promised a 1-2% / annum drawdown in total oil production. I checked Senator Whitehouse’s reference to this promise, while this isn’t exactly what Shell said, I believe Senator Whitehouse’s interpretation of Shell’s public commitment is a reasonable interpretation, and I accept Senator Whitehouse’s criticism that some oil companies do not appear to have lived up to some of their public commitments.
But Senator Whitehouse’s claim that oil companies concealed their knowledge that climate change would have a catastrophic impact also does not stand up to scrutiny.
For example, Senator Whitehouse’s report rehashes tired claims about ancient internal memos, but the memos I have read in my opinion are not what Senator Whitehouse claims they are.
The memo, and bear in mind this was a private internal memo, is anything but certain that climate change will have catastrophic impact. For example, at the bottom of Page 4, continuing to the top of Page 5.
“There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.
What is the next move in this ridiculous charade?
Obviously I’d like oil companies who have been trying to cosy up to the Democrats to up their game, stop leading politicians like Whitehouse with assurances they are onboard with Democrat climate initiatives, without following through on those assurances. This kind of behaviour severely weakens the position of oil companies, it makes oil companies look like liars. Such behaviour might even expose oil companies to legal liability, if green investors claim they suffered reputational damage because they were misled by false assurances that oil companies intended to switch to green energy.
But Senator Whitehouse’s apparent acceptance of claims that “new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately” as established fact is even more absurd than an oil company promising to get out of the oil business.
Senator Whitehouse, if you believe there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel, it is time for you to stop being such a hypocrite. If you truly believe oil and gas are on the brink of ruining the planet, that oil and gas companies are like tobacco companies, that renewables can replace oil and gas, then put your money where your mouth is, and push for an outright ban on oil and gas. Consult your scientists and tell us a hard deadline beyond which we cannot use oil and gas, and make that deadline law. Because without concrete action, all your words are just empty political posturing.
h/t strativarius, Breitbart; Greens are once again pinning their hopes on a November climate conference hosted by a nation whose President plans to boost gas production.
COP29 Host Azerbaijan Says Its Fossil Fuel Is ‘Gift From God’
President Aliyev commits to boosting investments in gas
Country also touts its rollout of green energies this decade
Azerbaijan, host of this year’s COP29 climate summit, will continue to invest in increasing gas production in order to feed demand from Europe as its president said that its abundant fossil fuels were a “gift from God.”
President Ilham Aliyev said at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin that oil and gas would be needed for “many more years” as the country prepares to host the 29th United Nations’ Conference of the Parties, or COP29, in Baku later this year. He highlighted an agreement reached with the European Union to scale up supplies of natural gas to help make up for Russian shortfalls after its invasion of Ukraine.
Are COP hosts chosen on the basis of how much the choice will upset greens?
Can you imagine what it must be like to be a green climate true believer? To believe that concerted global action is the only hope to save the world, to build up hope every year, only to see those hopes dashed, as each COP conference attempts to outdo the last in farcical mockery of climate tropes?
How can COP30 possibly top this comedy moment? Ask General Aladeen of Wadiya to host a COP conference? Obviously there is a minor problem that General Aladeen is a fictional character, but what better person to host a fictional climate conference?
Investors are fading on green energy investment funds due to worries about the sector’s ability to grow and the possible return of former President Donald Trump to the White House, Reuters reported Wednesday, citing analysis conducted by a firm called LSEG Lipper.
Funds that invest specifically in green energy companies and products around the world saw investment outflows totaling $4.8 billion during the first quarter of 2024, the largest amount in a single quarter on record, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index has tanked by about 10 percentage points this year while the S&P 500 Energy Index — a fund that features many oil and gas companies — is up by more than 16% this year so far.
“This is what Consumers’ Research has been warning about from the very beginning. The idea that the rush into [Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG)] and green investing would be good for investors and shareholders was always a lie,” Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now, with higher interest rates and a completely different energy paradigm, the folly of these boondoggles is becoming apparent.”(RELATED: Citigroup Reports Huge Share Of Its Clients Are Not Ready To Reach Key Climate Targets)
Red State Slaps Wall Street Titan With Cease And Desist Order Over ‘Fraudulent’ Claims About Green Investments https://t.co/QyEv2WBR8c
Many large financial institutions in the U.S. have embraced ESG investing in recent years, characterizing it as a practice that allows for investors to profit while also helping to effectuate positive societal changes. Opponents like Hild have countered that the strategy violates the fiduciary duty that institutions have to their investors by injecting politicized considerations into financial decision-making that ought to be entirely apolitical.
Now, some of the leading asset managers in the world, such as BlackRock and State Street, are under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for their ESG practices, while State Street and JP Morgan’s asset management arm have withdrawn from Climate Action 100+, a coalition that pushes companies to slash emissions and adopt other corporate climate policies.
Globally, some of the green funds that saw the biggest capital outflows in the first quarter of 2024 include Handelsbanken Hallbar Energi, a Swedish fund that lost $458 million of investment, and the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF, which lost $335 million, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, the Ninety One Global Environment Fund lost $226 million of investment in the first quarter.
The apparent downturn in investor confidence and interest in green energy funds appears to be happening despite the Biden administration’s push to advance its massive climate agenda and similarly costly initiatives undertaken by European states like Germany. Governments like those of the U.S. and Germany have spent vast sums of money to subsidize technologies like wind and solar power generation, but green energy has yet to displace fossil fuels as the lifeblood of the world’s developed economies.
If investor interest in green energy funds and products continues to dissipate, it is unlikely that international climate goals established or reaffirmed at 2023’s United Nations climate summit in Dubai will be met, according to Reuters.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Aerial view oil terminal is industrial facility for storage tank of oil and petrochemical industry products ready for transport to further storage facilities.
Hydraulic Fracturing, Horizontal Drilling, Supercomputers, Seismic Imaging, Smart PIGS, Drones and Robots, Water Recycling, Cloud Computing, Gas Imaging/VR, and Mobile Data/Internet of Things. These “top ten” categories explain why dilute, intermittent substitutes are government plays. A tip of the hat goes to the private property, free-market center of the oil and gas universe, the United States.
The Introduction and Conclusion of this study follow.
Over the past century, a stunning series of technological advances have transformed the oil and gas industry. While numerous innovations have influenced American production, a handful of key technologies have had an outsized impact, culminating in the United States becoming the world’s largest oil and gas producer. This position has not only strengthened U.S. energy security by decreasing our reliance on foreign energy resources, but has allowed the United States to become an increasingly important energy exporter.
This report examines how innovation across the oil and gas industry has driven the United States to become a global leader in energy. The report begins with two key technologies that served as inflection points in America’s rise as an energy powerhouse: hydraulic fracturing and horizontal directional drilling. As the industry continues to evolve, innovation is increasingly focused on minimizing environmental impacts, by mitigating emissions and using water more efficiently. The final section of the report details how energy companies are partnering with Silicon Valley on cutting-edge technologies aimed at improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing safety – all while increasing production.
Overall, technological advances in the oilfield are helping the United States reach new heights in oil and gas production, improving American energy security and driving growth in energy exports. In fact, thanks to technological advances in production, the Permian Basin in West Texas became the top producing oilfield in the world in May 2019, reaching 4.1 million barrels per day (b/d). Additionally, increased domestic natural gas production, similarly bolstered by advanced technology, allowed the United States to become a net natural gas exporter in 2017, a status it has retained ever since. American oil and gas production is a high-tech industry where innovation is constantly delivering the energy we all demand for a lower cost and with a smaller environmental footprint. The significance of this innovation will only grow as the United States reasserts itself in the global energy market not just as a major producer, but also as one of the world’s largest exporters of both oil and gas.
—————-
Thanks to oilfield innovation over the past several decades, the United States has become a global energy powerhouse. Directional drilling, which evolved into horizontal drilling, enabled oil and gas producers to minimize surface impacts while maximizing production volumes. This feat of technology was married with hydraulic fracturing to unlock the vast U.S. shale formations and ushered in record-breaking production that has positioned the United States as a driver of the global energy market. This record-breaking development, in turn, has improved our nation’s energy security, greatly decreasing America’s reliance on foreign oil and gas while also bolstering U.S. exports.
Operators today are focused on meeting the world’s growing energy demands while also protecting the planet. A multitude of technologies continue to reduce emissions, even as production grows. This is in addition to the nearly 2.4 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions that natural gas has prevented in the U.S. since 2005. Further, energy producers are implementing new technologies and best practices to limit freshwater use, turning to recycling and reusing greater percentages of produced water in their operations.
Looking to the future, the industry will maintain its position as a technological leader, making use of powerful computing and artificial intelligence technologies, state-of-the-art sensors and imaging, and cutting-edge robotics and autonomous vehicles. Partnerships with other innovators in Silicon Valley will ensure that the oil and gas industry remains on the cutting edge of new technologies.
The story of America’s rise to global energy dominance is a story of innovation. It’s a story of using technology to turn the impossible into the possible, and then leveraging those same technologies to address environmental concerns. As the next chapters unfold in America’s energy landscape, newer technologies and processes will deliver greater resources with even less impact, all while ensuring America retains its capacity for energy dominance.
The elephant in the room that policymakers refuse to talk about is that renewables only generate electricity but cannot manufacture any products for today’s materialistic society.
Ronald Steinis an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Regardless of the intermittent weather, the electrical grid is expected to deliver continuous and uninterrupted electricity no matter what the weather to support computers for hospitals, airports, offices, manufacturing, military sites, and telemetry, that all need a continuous uninterruptable supply of electricity.
Yet, policymakers continue to subsidize wind turbines and solar panels (with taxpayers’ money) for the generation of electricity that do not work most of the time.
I find it amusing that twenty-three states have adopted goals to move to 100 percent clean ELECTRICTY by 2050.
Of the six electrical generation methods, wind and solar cannot compete with hydro, nuclear, coal, or natural gas:
Wind and solar generate occasional electricity.
Hydro, nuclear, coal, and natural gas generate continuous uninterruptible electricity.
The elephant in the room that no policymaker wants to discuss is that:
Neither wind turbines nor solar panels can replace the supply chain of products from crude oil that are the foundation of our materialistic society demanded by the 8 billion on this planet.
Occasional electricity generated from wind and solar CANNOT support computers for hospitals, airports, offices, manufacturing, military sites, and telemetry, that all need a continuous uninterruptable supply of electricity.
Interestingly, all the components of wind turbines and solar panels are also based on the products made from fossil fuels. Thus, in a fossil-free society, we’re decaying back in the 1800’s as there will also be NO electricity. Life was short and hard for the common man just a few hundred years ago!
Sarcastically, or more realistically, these are a few boomerang impacts of a society free of crude oil:
Without oil, a significant loss of billions of lives of the 8 billion on this planet from starvation, diseases, and weather-related fatalities because of shortages of food, medications, and products, and a reduction in transportation infrastructures, that are all based on the components made from fossil fuels!
Without oil, we would drastically reduce the homeless population as all the tents and sleeping bags utilized by the homeless are all made from fossil fuels! The homeless will need to live like the cavemen in a non-materialistic society like that in the pre-1800’s.
Without oil, we would drastically reduce the unfunded pension liabilities associated with those that retire early from business or start collecting Social Security in their mid-60’s, and collect pensions well into their 80’s, as few people would live beyond their 40’s!
As a refresher for those pursuing net-zero emissions, wind and solar do different things than crude oil:
Wind turbines and solar panels do not work most of the time, as they only generate occasional electricity AND manufacture NOTHING for society as renewables cannot make tires, insulation, or fuels for commercial and military aircraft, merchant ships, and the space program.
Wind and solar cannot make any of the more than 6,000 products now in our materialistic world.
Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity but when manufactured into petrochemicals, is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s.
We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for jets, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800’s.
If the world governments want to rid the earth of crude oil usage, what’s the back-up source that can manufacture refrigerators, tires, asphalt, X-Ray machines, iPhones, air conditioners, and the other 6,000 products that wind and solar CANNOT manufacture?
Crude oil use is essential to human flourishing for the foreseeable future. The pursuit of “net zero by 2050, without first identifying the crude oil replacement to support the supply chain of products now demanded by those in developed countries, would be one of the most destructive developments in human history.
Without crude oil, there would be nothing that needs electricity!! Everything that needs electricity to function is made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, from computers, iPhones, telemetry, and HVAC units!!
Until a crude oil replacement is identified to manufacture products for society, the world cannot do without crude oil that is the basis of our materialistic “products” society.
We should be careful with what we wish for. From the proverb “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” tells us that:
You can’t rid the world of crude oil and continue to enjoy the products and transportation fuels that are currently made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil.
The few wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia represent about 6 percent of the world’s population (515 million vs 8 billion) are mandating social changes to achieve net zero emissions.
Germany, the first country to go “green” with an electricity generation transition to renewables, now has electricity rates that are among the highest in the world, and threatens to be an unaffordable, unrealizable disaster, according to the government’s own independent auditors.
Looking beyond the few wealthy countries setting environmental policies for the other 94 percent of the world’s population, billions still struggle to meet basic needs. The poorer on this planet may never be able to enjoy the materialistic living styles of those in wealthier countries.
The few in the developed countries have come a long way in the last few hundred years from the zero emissions society that existed before the 1800’s when:
There were no products for heating, cooling, or irrigation to prevent weather related fatalities and injuries before the 1800’s.
Life longevity was about 40 years of age before the 1800’s.
When people were born, they seldom traveled more than 100 miles from their birthplace before the 1800’s.
There was no medical industry before the 1800’s.
There were no electronics, computers, or iPhones before the 1800’s.
There were no transportation infrastructures before the 1800’s.
There were no tires or asphalt to support transportation infrastructures.
There were no airplanes and thus no airports before the 1800’s.
There were no cruise ships nor merchant ships, other than sailing vessels before the 1800’s.
There were no military ships or planes before the 1800’s.
There were no coal fired power plants before the 1800’s.
There were no natural gas-powered plants before the 1800’s.
There were no hydro or nuclear power plants before the 1800’s.
At the recent climate summit gathering in Dubai that attracted more than 70,000 from around the world that enjoy their materialistic lifestyles, as well as more than 600 emission-spewing private jets, the president of the United Nations Climate Change ConferenceCOP28, Sultan Al Jaber stated that a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”, i.e. back to the pre-1800’s !
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy literacy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
Roaming around what is believed to be modern-day Baku over 700 years ago, the explorer Marco Polo gazed with wonder at “a spring from which gushes a stream of oil, in such abundance that a hundred ships may load there at once”.
The birthplace of crude refining, Azerbaijan has embedded fossil fuels in the fabric of its society for centuries. Oil, and more recently, gas have never stopped flowing from the vast reservoirs dotted around the Caspian basin.
…
But as it gears up to host the Cop29 UN climate summit in November, Azerbaijan wants to show the world a different image. Burnishing its clean energy credentials through its state-owned oil and gas company, Socar, is part of the plan.
…
“A green division is meaningless for the climate without an accompanying plan to phase out oil and gas”, Myriam Douo, a senior campaigner with Oil Change International, told Climate Home. “The reality is that to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown more than half of fossil fuels in existing fields must stay in the ground”.
I think greens are being unduly harsh in their criticism of Azerbaijan. A COP conference host country hatching its first ever green plan should be encouraged as baby steps, not sneered at.
Lets not forget, the Azerbaijanis are a considerate people, I’m sure they’ll remember to provide space for a few green workshops in the middle of all the oil, gas and international arms sales negotiations.
The Biden administration proposed a new regulation Friday that would impose fines on oil and gas companies for methane emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.
The policy would require companies to pay a penalty of $900 per every ton of methane emitted beyond limits established by the government starting this year, with the cost for each ton above the government’s thresholds increasing to $1,200 in 2025 and jumping to $1,500 in 2026 and beyond, according to the EPA. While the agency touts the proposal as a tool to reduce methane emissions, energy producers have slammed it for adding complexity to the regulatory environment and potentially driving up energy costs for consumers.
“Today’s proposal, when finalized, will support a complementary set of technology standards and historic resources from the Inflation Reduction Act, to incentivize industry innovation and prompt action,” Michael Regan, the EPA’s administrator, said of the proposal. “We are laser-focused on working collectively with companies, states and communities to ensure that America leads in deploying technologies and innovations that aid in the development of a clean energy economy.” (RELATED: Biden Admin Kicks Off 2024 By Unleashing $1 Billion Worth Of New Regulations)
‘Outrageous’: EPA Agents Are Flying Helicopters Over Texas Oil Fields To Crack Down On Methane Emissions From Drillinghttps://t.co/vg5JmFJ7jP
The proposal would become the first direct federal tax on emissions in the U.S. if it is finalized and implemented as planned, according to The New York Times. Congress approved the policy in the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, which also contains $1 billion in grants and subsidies intended to improve methane leak detection.
The EPA estimates that methane drives one third of the warming occurring today and identifies the energy sector as the most significant industrial source of methane emissions in the country, according to its announcement. Environmentalistsmalign natural gas production in particular as a source of methane emissions, but natural gas burns more cleanly in comparison to other fossil fuels, such as coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“As the world looks to U.S. energy producers to provide stability in an increasingly unstable world, this punitive tax increase is a serious misstep that undermines America’s energy advantage,” Dustin Meyer, the senior vice president of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, said of the proposal. “While we support smart federal methane regulation, this proposal creates an incoherent, confusing regulatory regime that will only stifle innovation and undermine our ability to meet rising energy demand.”
The policy is a de facto “natural gas tax” that will almost certainly drive up costs for Americans, Larry Behrens, the communications director for Power The Future, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson took over as the speaker of the House in October, dozens of Republicans in his caucus wrote to him urging that he endeavor to repeal the enabling statute behind the regulation that the EPA proposed Friday.
“It’s a proposal that follows the direction set by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act, and we are looking forward to comments and input from industry and the public before finalizing it,” an EPA spokesperson told the DCNF, adding that the “estimated energy cost increases are minimal.”
Friday’s proposal complements a December 2023 EPA proposal for methane detection requirements, which independent oil and gas companies strongly oppose because the increased compliance costs would put them at a disadvantage relative to the major firms.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from an EPA spokesperson.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
