Renewable Energy vs. Reality

American families will face devastating increases in energy prices in the coming months. It is a wholly unnecessary crisis, created by the Biden Administration and the progressive extremists who control it.

Accepting the most radical of approaches to environmental concerns, Biden moved swiftly to curtail U.S. energy production the transportation of natural gas. Almost immediately upon taking office, he cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, halted new oil and gas leases on federal property, stopped drilling in ANWAR, and targeted federal subsidies for oil and gas production.

Before Biden attacked U.S. energy production, Americans were enjoying the financial benefits of the energy independence the Trump Administration had achieved. Household energy expenditures had dropped dramatically. Now, oil prices have hit a seven-year high.

Biden also rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, which does more to transfer wealth from industrialized nations to the Third World nations. As the Financial Post has noted, “Paris is a climate fairy tale. It has always been more about money and politics than the environment.”

Biden’s climate mistakes have been a major gift to Vladimir Putin. Russia’s main source of international income and power is from the sale of energy. While destroying Keystone, Biden made it easier for Putin’s similar pipeline to be developed. Major sales of U.S. energy to Europe, which could have aided the American economy, have been replaced by Moscow, which uses its energy sales as a bludgeon to influence the continent.

America’s NATO allies are suffering as a result of Biden’s inexplicable eviscerating of U.S. energy while encouraging Russia. Moscow has already begun squeezing supplies of energy. Europe was already suffering high prices, since they adopted policies similar to those Biden is now imposing on the U.S.

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and House Energy Action Team (HEAT) Co-Chairs Representative Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) have protested the White House policy. In a statement recently released, they noted:

This disorder is noticed in the man at any viagra properien age. A firm erection can only happen to a person is sexual issues super generic viagra to the man. Some herbs don’t viagra side online devensec.com blend very well with particular medications, or can be harmful if taken while suffering from certain health conditions. Some come into contact best prices on sildenafil with this as a result of growing older where they lose the energy and libido that their bodies used to possess.

“The Biden Administration has abandoned hard-working families because they once again chose radical anti-energy special interests over lower energy costs and national security for American households. Since taking office, President Biden’s anti-American energy agenda has been on full display as he has killed the Keystone pipeline and halted domestic oil and gas exploration while begging OPEC and Russia to increase production of foreign oil, and is now trying to ram through billions in new job-crushing energy taxes and regulations that will increase costs and inflation even higher on low-income families. Meanwhile, gas prices in America have skyrocketed to a seven-year high and household energy costs continue to increase for hard-working families. On top of that, this Administration has ignored the fact that these anti-American energy policies mean that we, and our allies abroad, will have to get our energy from countries with much worse emissions standards like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China…”

The path Biden is following has already failed in Europe, where natural gas prices are about six times as expensive as they were just a year ago. EuroNews reported that “Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki recently said the energy price crisis was to blame on the EU climate policy.”

Hiked energy prices result in higher prices for everything else. U.S. inflation has hit 5.4%, the highest rate since 2008. It may go higher as energy prices continue to soar.

The concept of engaging in clean energy is not terrible. But realism must be factored in. A Heartland Institute study notes that “The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting. Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. …would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada.” USAtoday reports, “The existing supply of metals needed for clean energy technologies is nowhere near sufficient, not in America nor across the world.”

Nor are the technologies used for “clean energy” without significant drawbacks. Solar energy destroys vast amounts of natural habitat; windmills destroy wildlife and use huge amounts of nonrecyclable materials.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.