XPost: alt.politics.green.party, sac.politics, alt.politics.elections   
   XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   From: zinn@reno.us   
      
   I sometimes wonder which policy of President Biden's has been or will be   
   the most destructive of them all. There are so many possibilities.   
      
   The American Rescue Plan of 2021 contributed to the record inflation of   
   the past year. Biden's reversal of the Migration Protection Protocols,   
   safe third country agreements, and other immigration policies enacted by   
   the previous administration resulted in historic numbers of illegal   
   entries along the southern border. The withdrawal from Afghanistan   
   abandoned a nation of 39 million people to a murderous, medieval,   
   terrorist-aligned mafia. Biden has pursued a renewed nuclear agreement   
   with Iran despite that regime's support for militias that fire on U.S.   
   troops, plots to kill U.S. officials on U.S. soil, and ultimate   
   responsibility for the assault on Salman Rushdie. Just the other day,   
   Biden announced a complex, unconstitutional, regressive, and inflationary   
   scheme to forgive student debt. The words "moral hazard" are not in his   
   vocabulary.   
      
   Like I said: There are plenty of options for which Biden policy is the   
   worst. Yet his biggest folly may turn out to be his green thumb. The manic   
   Progressive quest to eliminate fossil fuels and preside over a "green   
   energy transition" will make America dependent, unstable, poorer, needier,   
   and weaker. Indeed, it already is doing so.   
      
   Biden reentered the Paris Climate Agreement, canceled the Keystone   
   Pipeline, stopped energy leasing on federal property, suspended leases to   
   drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and spent hundreds of   
   billions on green energy projects in last year's Bipartisan Infrastructure   
   Deal and this year's Inflation Reduction Act. He wants to halve carbon   
   dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and "achieve a net-zero economy   
   by 2050."   
      
   Problem: You can't achieve these goals without massively raising energy   
   prices for everyday consumers. Sure enough, as gas prices went up over the   
   course of his term, Biden attacked the oil giants, pleaded with OPEC to   
   pump more oil, tried to make nice with autocracies in Venezuela and Iran,   
   and brought the Strategic Petroleum Reserve down to its lowest level since   
   1985. Recently the cost of a gallon of regular has ticked down and   
   President Biden's job approval rating has ticked up. Of course, if Biden,   
   Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and California governor Gavin   
   Newsom (D.) have their way, in the coming decades there won't be any cars   
   with combustion engines to fuel.   
      
   Newsom's California offers a glimpse of the future. Not long after Golden   
   State regulators announced a plan to forbid the sale of new gasoline-   
   powered cars by 2035, and state legislators passed $54 billion in climate-   
   related spending, officials declared a state of emergency and warned of   
   rolling blackouts. As government-subsidized and meteorologically   
   unreliable solar and wind energy displaces oil, gas, and nuclear on the   
   electric grid, consumers must reduce usage and prepare for the worst.   
   Among the ironies: To take pressure off the grid, commuters won't be able   
   to charge their soon-to-be-government-mandated electric vehicles during   
   peak hours. Stuck at home thanks to the clean energy economy? You can   
   always hitch a ride on a black-market gas guzzler.   
      
   Biden's and Newsom's goals, plans, and mandates may seem abstract. Their   
   timetables may extend long into the future. But as Richard Nixon's   
   favorite NFL coach liked to say, the future is now. It cannot be a   
   coincidence that California's population declines as its government   
   becomes more expensive and more intrusive, as zoning and environmental   
   regulations increase the cost of living. The top destination for   
   Californians is Texas. While the Longhorn State has electric grid problems   
   of its own, its authorities believe in cheap energy from every possible   
   source. The Texas economy is growing, along with its population.   
      
   The same can't be said of Europe. The continent's climate solipsism is   
   more acute than California's. Its dilemma is therefore more serious. The   
   push for green energy in the United Kingdom and in Europe, along with   
   decades of antinuclear paranoia in Germany, has left millions dependent on   
   natural gas supplied by Russia. In the 1970s, Arab and Iranian governments   
   wielded the oil weapon to wreak havoc around the globe. In the 2020s,   
   Russia uses the gas weapon to extort its neighbors, fund its war machine,   
   and threaten NATO with cutoffs, price hikes, shortages, inflation,   
   political instability, and deaths from bitter cold.   
      
   Sanctions on the Russian economy over its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine   
   have neither brought the war to an end nor Moscow to the negotiating   
   table. European leaders project an uneasy confidence about what lies   
   ahead. "Even if it gets tight," said Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor,   
   on September 1, "we will probably get through the winter."   
      
   Probably?   
      
   This situation was not inevitable. But it was predictable. Europe's   
   vulnerability is the consequence of swearing off oil and gas and nuclear   
   energy in the quixotic pursuit of environmental purity. It is what happens   
   when government plans collide with geopolitical realities. Europeans are   
   paying the price for elevating Greta Thunberg over Elon Musk. The price   
   may soon get higher.   
      
   I don't deny global warming. And I am open to policies that reduce carbon   
   emissions and that—most importantly—encourage technological innovations   
   and adaptations to a changing world. You won't get anywhere by mandating   
   the substitution of one form of energy over another. Instead, you should   
   explore the alternatives while sustaining the very basis of global   
   commerce: cheap and plentiful carbon energy.   
      
   The best thing President Biden could do for the American economy, the   
   American worker, and the world would be to drop his antipathy to carbon   
   fuels. Resume leasing on public lands and waters. Approve pipelines,   
   deregulate biofuels mandates to increase refinery capacity, and make good   
   on the promise to reform permits. Above all, finance the construction of   
   as many nuclear plants as possible. Why cede energy dominance to hostile   
   nations? Now is not the time to impose limits. It's time to power up.   
      
   Published under: Biden Administration, California, Energy, Feature, Gavin   
   Newsom, Global Warming, Green Energy, Natural Gas   
      
   https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-green-surrender/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)