Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Trump Explains the Middle East Peace deal in terms of energy independence

In the debate last night, President Trump finally talked about the most important impact of his energy policy. Energy independence means much more than low prices at the gas pump and on your utility bill. The widespread use of natural gas is also great for the environment and has lowered our carbon emissions. These are both great outcomes but they don’t hold a candle to the impact on foreign policy.

In ten seconds, President Trump gives the money quote:

“We are energy independent for the first time. We don’t need all of these countries that we had to fight war over because we needed their energy. We are energy independent.”

This obvious outcome is the secret sauce in President Trump’s success in the Middle East. While it is reasonable to assume that technology will eventually lead us away from sole reliance on fossil fuels, the United States becoming energy independent forced petrol-economies in the Middle East to start considering a future where their primary export was less in demand.

As such, there is far less incentive for the United States to spend blood and treasure in the region to mitigate centuries-old conflicts. The very idea that this expenditure would turn the Middle East into democratic states was simply absurd. The primary religion in the region discourages democratic elections and is prone to some form of theocracy. To think we were going to exchange American lives and expenditures on oil for a complete rejection of core tenents of the Muslim faith has been a fool’s errand since 1979.

Certainly, our post-World War II success in Europe, Japan, and the former Soviet Union fueled these fever dreams. However, the “experts” could never solve the significant cultural differences between the West and the Middle East. In reality, they did not even solve the region’s overwhelming cultural differences when it was carved up into countries with arbitrary borders.

As a result, the United States and the world have been dragged into these conflicts to preserve access to their rich reserves of oil. President Trump’s energy policy freed the United States from being one of the largest importers of Middle Eastern oil. This change caused the region to confront the idea that their economies must modernize to meet the challenge of evolving energy technologies at some point in the future.

For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has seen steady progress towards a workable solution for nuclear fusion. In September, MIT announced a significant breakthrough in the design of SPARC, a precursor to a practical, emissions-free power plant:

SPARC is planned to be the first experimental device ever to achieve a “burning plasma” — that is, a self-sustaining fusion reaction in which different isotopes of the element hydrogen fuse together to form helium, without the need for any further input of energy. Studying the behavior of this burning plasma — something never before seen on Earth in a controlled fashion — is seen as crucial information for developing the next step, a working prototype of a practical, power-generating power plant.

It appears much of the Arab world is choosing economic progress and modernization over continued wars. Israel has positioned itself as an entrepreneurial and technology-driven economy. The idea of technology transfer for economic growth as well as for water desalination is winning. It was most certainly helped along with less dependence from the United States on foreign oil.

The Trump administration’s putting an end to Iranian appeasement was also key to moving the Arab world in the right direction. The entire world saw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak in from the United States Congress to warn of the danger Iran posed during the Iran Deal negotiation. Apparently, many of their Arab neighbors also see Iran as an existential threat.

By gutting decades of failed Middle Eastern policy, the Trump administration made significant gains toward peace. As if we needed further proof, President Trump announced this morning that Sudan will be normalizing relations with Isreal. The Arab nation will be joining Bahrain and United Arab Emirates as Muslim nations leading a reframing of diplomatic relations with Isreal.

Ultimately, the Biden energy plan will reverse all of the gains in the region. Just like California imports fossil-fuel energy from Arizona and Nevada when their green energy is not sufficient, the United States will return to a dependence on Middle Eastern oil when wind and solar are insufficient to serve our high-density urban centers and industrial economy.

This is why the warmongers from both parties are coalescing around Biden. So, if you are tired of endless wars and endless investment in foreign nations rather than at home, another four years of the Trump policies will solidify a different approach. A vote for Biden simply turns back the clock.

Biden's 'Transition' From Oil Comment Becomes a Big Fracking Problem in Pennsylvania

Joe Biden campaigned in Pennsylvania on Saturday and in three separate interviews by local media, was pressed about his comments during the debate about wanting to “transition” from fossil fuels to wind and solar power. He was also closely questioned about his views on fracking, that he still has trouble answering.

This has become a genuine issue in Pennsylvania, an energy-producing state with tens of thousands of jobs in the industry.

Fox News:

“Look I’m from Scranton, Pennsylvania. My great grandfather was a mining engineer. So I come from coal country. And I’m not talking about eliminating fracking, I just said no more fracking on federal lands,” Biden told CBS Philadelphia. “With regard to gas, oil, coal all of it, the transition is taking place having nothing to do with anything I’m proposing. The fact is that the fastest growing industries in the country are solar and wind. We can move in a direction where the transition takes place, so that people are not left behind, and we we got to invest in the new technologies.”

First of all, Biden said he would ban fracking, period.

Regarding fracking, Biden has been inconsistent with his long-term goals. He has regularly said that he only intends on banning new fracking on federal lands, but during a 2019 Democratic primary debate, he took a much more sweeping approach. The former vice president was asked whether there would be “any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?”

Biden’s response: “No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.”

Secondly, even as president, he might not have much to say about it. It’s a certainty that Biden will name a radical green to run the EPA. They will ban fracking as a first order of business. And the rest of the party will obediently fall in line.

And the “transition” from fossil fuels will not go quite as smoothly as Biden is letting on.

“What I said was, we’re gonna stop the subsidies for oil, which is about $40 billion. We’re going to take that money, invest it in new technologies for what they call carbon capture. We’re going to still need oil. We’re gonna still have combustion engines, We’re still going to need oil for many things, but what’s happening is you have to do it, and we can work toward getting it done so you can capture the carbon that comes from that gas and that oil. That’s what has to be done.”

We are going to see “creative destruction” on a scale not seen since the replacement of steam with oil and gas. There is going to be nothing orderly about it. Workers will lose their jobs. Companies big and small will disappear.

There will be blackouts, gas shortages, perhaps even heating oil shortages during the winter. It will happen because the government won’t let it happen as a matter of course. They will force the issue, picking and choosing winners and losers. There will be a lot of blood on the floor in corporate America and in the workshops and on the line in American factories. It will not end well for many.

To so cavalierly talk about such a massive shift in our economy without even mentioning a downside is irresponsible.

Biden's War on Oil Causing Headaches for Democrats in Tight Races

At Thursday night's presidential debate, Joe Biden came out in support of eliminating the oil industry, albeit not overnight. Previously, Biden had come out against fracking and fossil fuels. But the Democratic nominee made it known on Thursday that he's in lockstep with AOC and the far left's plans to ban the entire industry, which close political observers already knew.

Biden's outing as an anti-oil candidate sent shockwaves across battleground states where Biden's fellow Democrats are in tight congressional races and are now having to explain away Biden's vow to eliminate oil. Millions of jobs would be terminated if Biden wins the election and kills oil.

(Via The Hill)

Biden has rolled out nothing short of an entirely left-wing economic agenda and has never been forced to defend it on a public stage until Thursday,” said Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist and McConnell’s former chief of staff.

Holmes said Biden’s comments on oil could have “profound effect” in states such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas and others were there is what he called “a culture of energy production.”


Biden’s remarks will give Republicans a chance to put the economy and regulation in the spotlight for the final 10 days of the campaign, something they’ve wanted to do for months.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) released a new television ad in Maine attempting to tie Democratic candidate Sara Gideon to “liberal out-of-staters” who “want a green new deal raising taxes on home heating oil.”

Biden walked right into the Republican talking points by pledging to end federal subsidies for the oil industry. One such subsidy, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is especially popular in Maine.


The former vice president tried to soften his statement after the debate, telling reporters as he was boarding his plane: “We’re not going to get rid of fossil fuels.”

“We’re not going to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels,” he added.

Biden flips back and forth when questioned about his position on oil, a telltale sign he's lying. Couple his flip-flops with his candid remarks at the debate, and rest assured that Biden won't get in the way of his party's war on oil.

Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, the most liberal member of Congress, has endorsed AOC's Green New Deal. The Democratic Party wants to follow California's lead and ruin the entire country to fight "climate change." California has done the most to fight climate change and by their own admission, it isn't working. California's leaders blame "climate change" for the worst wildfire season on record. So why should America follow California off the cliff by adopting similar ruinous policies that clearly don't work?

The economy needs to be rebuilt from the lockdowns. President Trump took the economy to new highs while Joe Biden presided over the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression for eight years. Putting the oil industry out of business and continuing the lockdowns are not what America needs for the next four years.

Fracking Has Made America Great Again – We are Energy Independent for the First Time Since 1957

Fracking has become public enemy No. 1 in Democrat circles. It continues to be characterized as a “dangerous, new extraction technology.”

The spread of such misinformation in part fuels fears about hydraulic fracturing -- the real name of what is a decades-old practice in the petroleum industry to increase the yield in oil and gas wells.

Much like driving a wedge into a log, hydraulic fracturing involves pumping a gelled suspension of sand, sintered bauxite or some other proppant under pressure into an oil or gas well. The pressure generated by the pumping forces the fracturing fluid into the cracks and crevasses in a petroleum-rich formation increasing a well’s yield.

The fracturing fluid – really a gel - ultimately breaks and is pumped back to the surface leaving the proppant behind to maintain open the newly formed fissures.

During the oil boom in the 1980s, when almost every farm in Texas and Oklahoma had an oil well on its land, I was working with a team of chemists in the laboratories of Dynamit Nobel of America. We developed and patented a technology to delay the gelling of hydraulic fracturing fluids that allowed them to be pumped into the ground with less friction.

What I learned was that the fears over fracking “injecting dangerous chemicals” into the ground were unfounded.

Ponder the irony: A reservoir of naturally occurring petroleum is on its face, a cavern filled with dangerous chemicals, consisting largely of a “flammable mixture of hydrocarbons and other organic compounds.”

In contrast, the three main constituents of a fracturing fluid are water, an inert proppant and some form of guar gum, a common thickener used in many foods including ice cream to improve mouth feel.

The results of a published study in the Aug. 13, 2014 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concluded that “[the] chemical additives typically make up only about 0.5% of the fracking fluid, which is mostly water and sand… [F]ew of the roughly 90 commonly used compounds are toxic to people.”

It is no wonder that a 2016 EPA report on the potential for contamination of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing was inconclusive.

While there is risk in the adoption of any technology on a large scale – planes crash and kill people as do automobiles – we still drive and fly.

The trade off to any perceived risk with fracking – real or otherwise – is that in 2019, America became energy independent for the first time since 1957.

As misguided environmentalists clamor for an end to fracking, American Exceptionalism pushes ahead with technology that has made modern automobile engines more fuel efficient. And despite pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, we continue to lead the way with the largest carbon footprint reduction of any developed nation in the world.

That’s great for all of us.


My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


No comments: