Sunday, December 31, 2023
Here’s How Much Money Biden’s ‘Anti-Fossil Fuel’ Regulatory Agenda Sucks From the US Economy Each Year
The administration has unleashed a bevy of regulations from several agencies that have distorted energy markets and disincentivized long-term investment in fossil fuel production, which in turn has increased the costs of energy production and consumption to the detriment of the overall American economy, according to the report.
These policies and their ramifications play to the advantage of major oil producers in Asia and the Middle East, some of which are known to use oil revenues to bankroll terrorist organizations, while American consumers and businesses navigate higher costs.
“This study examines what has happened with oil and gas production when we adjust for the large increase in the world price since [President Joe] Biden entered office, and the upward supply trends that had widely been expected to continue,” the report’s executive summary states. “Coincident with Biden’s new anti-energy policies, vigorous ‘Environmental, Social and Governance’ (ESG) investing and rising business tax rates, U.S. oil production has fallen 1-5 million daily barrels short of previous trends. Increased costs of oil and gas extraction are reducing annual GDP by about $100 billion.”
Further, the administration’s approach to regulating energy markets has chilled incentives for technological innovation in extracting fuels, and the natural gas industry has also underperformed relative to how it was trending when former President Donald Trump was in office, according to the report.
Notably, oil production in the U.S. is hovering at or above record levels, even as the industry deals with the regulatory barrage. While the Biden administration has suggested that this fact demonstrates that it is not cracking down on fossil fuel production, Daniel Turner, an energy sector expert and the executive director for Power The Future, previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that this narrative is misleading because “the lifetime of an oil well is years in the making, and so all of the production that is online now is from wells that started well before Biden came into office.”
The Committee To Unleash Prosperity’s report also rejects the notion that “Biden’s anti-fossil fuels policies—ranging from taking hundreds of thousands of acres off-line for drilling, to canceling pipelines, to restrictive environmental regulations that make drilling more expensive—are not the reason for the energy crisis and high gas prices at the pump.”
The administration has taken dozens of executive and regulatory actions designed to make oil and gas activity more difficult and expensive since it assumed power in 2021, according to research conducted by the Institute for Energy Research.
The Biden administration has engaged in a broad effort to reduce new oil and gas activity on federally controlled lands, which has resulted in millions of acres being removed from consideration for oil drilling activity. Biden pledged to fully stop oil and gas activity on federal lands as a candidate and issued a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands in 2021, later saying in August that he would have been able to fulfill that promise if not for the court system.
The administration finalized the most restrictive offshore oil and gas leasing schedule in American history on Friday, has leased the fewest acres for oil and gas drilling of any administration in the last 80 years, and has moved to increase the costs of oil and gas activities on public lands that it has not excluded from such uses altogether.
The administration has also retroactively nixed leases in Alaska and attempted to remove huge swaths of the state’s land from eligibility for oil and gas activity, but the administration’s approach has not satisfied hard-line environmentalists, a key electoral and fundraising constituency for Biden.
The Biden administration’s energy policies are not only holding back the American economy, but also empowering foreign countries to whom the U.S. has ceded control of the marginal price of oil, according to the report.
“Anti-energy policies in the United States enrich the major oil producers in Asia and the Middle East, some of whom use their wealth to fund terrorism. Indeed, they are enriched twice by our policies,” the report states. “One benefit they get is that subtractions from U.S. production are subtractions from world production that contribute to higher world oil prices. The second benefit is that undermining shale activity in the U.S. gives OPEC more pricing power, because we are no longer as able to respond to OPEC production cuts with production increases of our own.”
***************************************************
Science and environmental costs show folly over unwavering commitment to lab meat
I have some state-of-the-art bioreactors right outside my window. They are solar-powered, grass-fuelled, self-replacing, self-cleaning and biodegradable. They walk around casually generating beef cells and are more commonly known as cows.
Little do they know they were central to discussions that recently took place half a world away at the COP28 summit in the United Arab Emirates. To build a meat-making machine that outperforms these docile ruminants on environmental and efficiency measures was surprisingly high on the agenda despite a track record of unmet targets and broken promises on the part of lab-meat proponents.
Billions of investment dollars, some of the world’s best scientific minds and the ideological willpower of vegans combined have yet to result in the development of a bioreactor quite as good as a cow. The process of taking animal cells and replicating them outside the body does work, but it requires a complex and expensive growth medium to feed the cells, as well as a sterile and temperature-controlled environment. If we thought three stomachs were complicated, this takes the cake. A kilogram of synthetic beef costs about $33,000 to produce, according to an estimate from the Good Food Institute in 2021. Admittedly, this is down from $3.5m a kilogram in 2013 when the first synthetic burger was unveiled but it’s still an astonishingly long way off commercial viability.
Estimates of when lab-grown meat will begin to replace natural meat vary from next year to next decade. The sticking point at this stage remains the cost of the pharmaceutical-grade growth medium, which is stubbornly high at more than $600 a litre. If technological advances could drive the price of the medium down to $30 a litre, the cost price of the final product is estimated to reach just under $100 a kilogram. This doesn’t account for supermarket and restaurant mark-ups.
Nevertheless, Australian lab meat company Magic Valley told The Australian earlier this year that its products would be on the shelves by the end of 2024. This is an extraordinary claim given the technological hurdles that remain and the fact lab-grown meat is not yet approved for sale in Australia.
Another company, Eat Just, did manage to sell lab-grown chicken nuggets at a restaurant in Singapore earlier this year for about $75 a nugget. The company will not comment on costs of production but – given the known variables such as medium, labour and energy costs – it has to be assumed it is selling the nuggets at a significant loss to attract publicity and further investment.
Scientists are beginning to question whether further investment in lab-grown meat is warranted in light of the scaleability challenges and doubts over improved environmental outcomes. This year University of California scientists estimated that using current technologies to produce lab-grown beef had up to 25 times more “global warming potential”. Even with technological advances, the estimate ranged from 80 per cent lower to 26 per cent higher global warming potential.
In a report released last year that estimated the future cost of lab-grown meat, scientists from Oklahoma State University made clear that some of the technological advances required to sell lab meat in a mass market might never materialise. “This cost estimate may not ever be reached since it will require multiple technological advances to be achieved,” the authors warned. “In practical terms, for this large-scale production, a kilogram of cell-cultured hamburger meat would cost well over $US100/kg at the supermarket and restaurants.”
It’s also important to consider that if renewable energy technology advanced quickly enough to cheaply power millions of giant steel vats in thousands of factories across the world, this also would dramatically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions created by existing food production systems.
Inventing cheap, reliable broadscale renewable energy is not the means to an end, it is the end. If the time and money that have been plunged into million-dollar beef patties across the past decade had been directed to renewable energy and recycling solutions, who knows what we could have achieved.
The publicity exercise around lab meat is ongoing, with a concerted effort to call it cultivated or cultured rather than lab-grown or synthetic. Cultivated is a term apparently being used to conjure wholesome imagery of growing food from the soil. Cultured sounds artisanal and bespoke. It’s image control that directs our minds away from the steel vats, the syringes, the gooey medium fluid and the white coats hovering over your future dinner. These images are off-putting but this is the reality. Just as people who eat natural meat must come to terms with facts of life such as death, people who eat lab-grown meat cannot escape the fact it came from a lab.
If the problem of methane emissions from cattle were addressed with an open mind, we could have been investing in natural dietary additives such as algae and seaweed that reduce the amount of methane cattle burp and fart. We could have been investing in management practices that used cattle to regenerate the soil naturally and sequester carbon dioxide.
Seeking to eliminate cattle from our diet fails to recognise that herd animals have played a critical role in grasslands ecosystems for hundreds of thousands of years. Removing them from areas that are unsuitable for farming is not an efficient use of land. Herd animals also remain a vital source of protein for poorer nations and small landholders responsible for most of the earth’s farmland.
Synthetic meat ventures’ continued ability to attract investment despite poor performance suggests the backing is based on hope and inflated claims rather than due diligence or evidence. The danger of being so heavily invested in an idea, both mentally and financially, is that we become incapable of considering alternatives. The unwavering commitment to lab meat despite fundamental problems is emblematic of the way ideological viewpoints quickly become blinkered and counter-productive to the original problem they were trying to solve.
It seems the allure of grandiose plans and discoveries that assure individuals a place in the history books has been prioritised over projects that genuinely would serve the collective good. Instead of having the humility to recognise and work with the genius of the natural world, our egos get in the way and the only result is a poor imitation.
*************************************************
Associated Press Got It Wrong: Wind Farm Contractors Acknowledge Turbines Harm Dolphins, Whales
The misleading AP article—carried by WBTS-TV in Boston; The Daily Star newspaper of Oneonta, New York; and WTFX-TV in Philadelphia, among others—stated that “scientists say there is no credible evidence linking offshore wind farms to whale deaths” and that “offshore wind opponents are using unsupported claims about harm to whales to try to stop projects, with some of the loudest opposition centered in New Jersey.”
The article accuses opponents of causing “angst in coastal communities, where developers need to build shoreside infrastructure to operate a wind farm.”
If so, why are offshore wind farm companies asking Uncle Sam for permission to harm ocean mammals, and why are dead whales washing up on East Coast beaches?
According to AP reporters Christina Larson, Jennifer McDermott, Patrick Whittle, and Wayne Parry, “One vocal opponent of offshore wind is The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the foundation’s center for energy, climate and environment, wrote in November that Danish company Ørsted’s scrapped New Jersey wind project was “unsightly” and “a threat to wildlife.”
If the four reporters had done their homework, they would have mentioned that in required environmental-impact filings with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, companies explain that sounds generated by their activities will harm ocean mammals.
For example, Atlantic Shores and Ørsted’s Ocean Winds both requested permission to harm ocean mammals in their applications for New Jersey offshore-wind projects. And, since boats ramped up offshore surveys in May 2022, 31 dead whales have washed up on New Jersey and surrounding beaches.
Ørsted, which in November pulled out of a proposed New Jersey offshore wind farm, requested permission to harm 30 whales, 3,231 dolphins, 82 porpoises, and eight seals through sound waves generated by its surveys—although the company claims that the damage would be negligible.
The precise numbers and detailed species can be found on the website of the NOAA, in Ørsted’s Application for Incidental Harassment Authorization (Table 9).
Atlantic Shores, owned by Dutch Shell oil and French EDF, is still seeking permission to locate an offshore wind farm in New Jersey. In its Request for Incidental Harassment (Table 6-3) it stated that acoustic waves associated with the siting of the wind turbines would likely affect 10 whales, 662 dolphins, 206 porpoises, and 546 seals (also termed a negligible amount). It received permission to harm these marine animals.
Although the companies describe effects as “negligible,” the NOAA website states that it’s difficult to measure the effects of manmade sounds on mammals.
“Acoustic trauma, which could result from close exposure to loud human-produced sounds, is very challenging to assess, particularly with any amount of decomposition,” or damage to the whale’s body, states NOAA on its website.
Sean Hayes, chief of protected species for the NOAA, wrote in a letter to Brian Hooker, lead biologist at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: “The development of offshore wind poses risks to these species [right whales], which is magnified in southern New England waters due to species abundance and distribution … . However, unlike vessel traffic and noise, which can be mitigated to some extent, oceanographic impacts from installed and operating turbines cannot be mitigated for the 30-year life span of the project, unless they are decommissioned.”
In addition, the AP article made no mention that some of the companies that would install these wind farms are owned by Denmark, the Netherlands, and France—despite the fact that renewable energy tax credits in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act are aimed at stimulating domestic firms to produce renewable energy. And there was no mention that New Jersey offshore wind farms would have practically no effect on mitigating global temperatures, either now or by 2100.
Local municipalities are increasingly rejecting wind farms, according to a Renewable Rejection Database tracker maintained by environmental scholar Robert Bryce. He reports that 417 wind farms and 190 solar arrays have been rejected by local communities in 2023. More than 600 projects have been rejected in 2023, up from 489 in 2022 and 208 in 2018.
Proponents of renewable energy are trying to gloss over its harms and exaggerate its benefits in an attempt to push costly offshore wind farms. For the record, French- and Dutch-owned Atlantic Shores and Danish-owned Ørsted asked permission to hurt whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals.
Americans in New Jersey and elsewhere oppose that environmental damage.
*************************************************
Australia: Peak Body Criticises Decision to Ban Oil, Gas Development in Lake Eyre Basin
A peak industry association representing Queensland’s minerals and energy producers has criticised the state government for banning new oil and gas development in the country’s largest drainage basin.
The ban came a few days after Queensland Premier Steven Miles assumed the position of the state's leader following the resignation of predecessor, Annastacia Palaszczuk.
Under the ban, the Queensland government will prohibit all future oil and gas production in the Lake Eyre Basin's rivers and floodplains.
However, the ban will not cover existing approved conventional gas developments, and holders of existing petroleum exploration permits can apply for a production lease until Aug. 30, 2024.
Lake Eyre Basin is one of the largest drainage basins in the world. It covers an area of 1.2 million square kilometres, including parts of Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and New South Wales.
Large tracts of the Basin is considered arid, supporting just 60,000 people, with the major land use (82 percent) being for low-density grazing.
It is also well-known for containing significant oil and gas resources.
Following the announcement, Queensland Resources Council CEO Ian Macfarlane criticised the state government for not considering the social and economic impact of preventing further expansion of Australia’s gas reserves.
“Reports this week indicate Australia’s East Coast is facing another gas shortage over the next few years and will rely on Queensland producers to ensure supply to millions of homes and businesses,” he said in a statement.
“Less supply means higher gas prices for Australians already struggling with cost-of-living pressures.
“Unless governments are prepared to allow and support new gas projects to be developed, not only will energy prices continue to climb, but southern states are going to run out of gas.”
The CEO noted that the decision was a blow to the energy sector, which had engaged in good faith with the Queensland government and other stakeholders and was willing to work with them to maintain the highest standards to protect the environment.
“The Queensland gas industry has developed alongside agriculture and other regional industries over the past six decades, supporting regional communities, and providing a benefit to all Queenslanders,” he said.
“There is no reason why the gas industry can’t continue along the same regulated and sustainable path that provides new opportunities for the communities of South West Queensland.”
Mr. Macfarlane also believed the ban would create more policy uncertainty for the resources sector and hinder new investments while impacting the livelihood of local communities relying on oil and gas extraction.
Mr. Macfarlane's remarks come after a June report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission indicated that Australia’s southern states would likely experience a gas shortfall in 2024.
The consumer watchdog warned that the shortfall risk would remain unless there was considerable transport and storage capacity to deliver Queensland’s surplus gas to those states.
Queensland Government’s Response
Meanwhile, Mr. Miles said the new policy would protect the Lake Eyre Basin for future generations of Queenslanders.
“The changes strike a good balance in preserving the Queensland Lake Eyre Basin region while providing industry with the tools they need to grow and develop,” the premier said in a statement.
Echoing the sentiment, Queensland Environment Minister Leanne Linard highlighted the importance of preserving the Basin.
“Maintaining clean and uninterrupted flow of the waterways in the basin is critical to the survival of the wildlife and the businesses and communities in the region,” she said.
“The Miles government is committed to the ongoing preservation of the ecological and cultural values in the rivers, watercourses and floodplains of the Queensland Lake Eyre Basin and First Nations Peoples’ connection to the land.”
Environmentalist group Lock The Gate welcomed the ban and hoped to see more similar policies from the government.
“Unconventional oil and gas extraction can require thousands of wells to be drilled across a landscape, with each well requiring millions of litres of water for a single frack,” Lock the Gate Alliance national coordinator Ellen Roberts said.
“This sort of development would have decimated the fragile and unique rivers and floodplains of the Channel Country. It would have pushed out existing sustainable industries and wreaked havoc on cultural sites.”
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment