X Close

Joe Biden’s billion-dollar oil mistake The President hamstrung his country from Day One

Failure may be the only option (Royal Court of Saudi Arabia / Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Failure may be the only option (Royal Court of Saudi Arabia / Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)


September 28, 2023   7 mins

One of the many ironies of the Just Stop Oil movement is that, for the past year, their protests have been positively correlated with the price of oil. If you were tempted to indulge in a little schadenfreude, you might think that the infinitely annoying movement is putting money in the pockets of the world’s biggest fossil fuel producers.

The reality, however, is much grimmer. What has landed us here is a combination of three of the Biden administration’s signature policies — its aggressive support for ESG, its proxy war against Russia, and its sabre-rattling approach to China. The result is that the US is now in an energy chokehold right when the country needs as many options as possible.

After nearly two years of biting inflation, developed nations are starting to believe that the beast of relentlessly rising prices has been tamed. But as oil prices again barrel towards $100 — with one industry CEO predicting it could reach a devastating $150 — that could be about to change. Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia announced that it would extend a July production cut of one million barrels a day through the end of 2023. On its own, this news is bad enough. What makes it worse is that the Saudis are now apparently coordinating energy policy with America’s enemy number one, Russia, which has cut 300,000 barrels a day for the same period.

For Joe Biden, the timing couldn’t be worse. He is polling neck and neck with Donald Trump, and is facing an onslaught of challenges from House Republicans related to the business dealings of his son, Hunter. But from a policy point of view, the news is far more serious. The causes of surging oil prices trace back to structural changes Biden made to the economy, combined with now intractable foreign policy commitments, which, this late in the game, cannot be easily undone.

Those decisions go back to Biden’s very first day in office. On 20 January 2021, the new president signed an executive order revoking a permit required for the Keystone XL, an extension of an existing pipeline that would have transported an extra 830,000 barrels per day from Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas. The move had its roots in Biden’s campaign strategy, which positioned Biden as a “climate change pioneer”. According to the text of Biden’s executive order: “The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.” The Keystone XL pipeline “disserves” American interests, Biden said.

The media bolstered the decision, arguing that, with oil then trading at around $60 per barrel, the pipeline was not economically viable. But it would take just five months for oil to rise 50% to around $80, and a little more than a year for the price of oil to double to about $120 per barrel, pushing inflation up significantly. More importantly, Biden’s executive order and the decision by developers to abandon the pipeline signalled a shift in the policy winds on US energy and oil exploration. With the price of oil rising and the government taking an aggressive ESG-minded position on domestic exploration and development, oil producers went from investing in technologies such as new shale extraction methods to a new mode of profit-taking, where innovation is stopped in favour of extracting the profit from previous years’ investments.

When Biden signed the order, there was little or no inflation on the horizon. By the spring of that year, when inflation jumped to 4% and kept rising — with oil prices tracking it, resulting in a 50% jump in prices at the pump — the administration seemed to grow desperate. In November 2021, Biden began tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a reservoir of oil meant to weather the country through war. This began with an initial release of 50 million barrels (out of a total capacity of 714 million), in the hope that the move would lower fuel prices and curb inflation. It didn’t. Over the course of the subsequent year, Biden would release another 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR, leaving the SPR at its lowest level in four decades.

If the White House appeared desperate in the winter of 2021, the following spring would bring about a series of events that would make the most powerful government in the world look like a third-rate power. In March last year, hoping to secure a promise by Gulf producers to increase production, Biden reached out to Mohammed Bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and the UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan. Astonishingly, both men declined to take the call.

While Opec+ lives up to its role as the world’s most powerful oil cartel, there generally has been enough wiggle room for American presidents to influence Saudi production. This is partly because, for the past three decades, Saudi Arabia has been more of a reformed American ally than a leverage-pushing adversary. The Saudis lowered prices in response to a lobbying effort by President George W. Bush in 2004 — a success quickly spun by the anti-Bush media as a Saudi attempt to interfere in US elections and “buy” the president — and again in 2008. Most importantly, whether or not they complied, and in some cases they didn’t, they were willing to hear the American president out.

The reasons for Biden’s fall from the Gulf’s graces can be traced back to his role in leading aspects of foreign policy in the Obama White House. Specifically, Obama relied on Biden to advance and pass the nuclear deal with Iran which, in exchange for the removal of US sanctions, would see Iran slowing development of its nuclear programme and open it to international inspections. The Saudis, along with other Gulf allies, considered the deal a betrayal that endangered their national security.

After Trump scuppered the deal, Biden campaigned on reinstating it. In the context of Biden’s other Gulf-related campaign pledge — to turn Saudi Arabia into a “pariah” — and the barrages of missiles falling on Saudi Arabia from Iran-backed rebels in Yemen (which Trump also permitted without any significant action), the move seemed to double down on Obama-era fecklessness, leading to Saudi Arabia and UAE’s decision to not only refuse to increase oil production but to not pick up the phone.

By last October, Biden’s administration had no choice but to U-turn as it came out calling for an increase in US oil production. “You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining,” Biden said at an October 2022 press conference. That, however, was no longer possible. The stock of cheap, easy-to-access shale had been pulled out of the ground, exhausting the country’s ability to continue ramping up production. And the Keystone pipeline extension that would have brought nearly one million barrels a day from Canada to Texas had been cancelled — by Biden.

While the administration was attempting to retrofit its energy policy, it was formulating the most aggressive economic response to a foreign war in memory. In April 2022, two months after Russia invaded Ukraine, the administration unleashed what it accurately characterised as “unprecedented sanctions” against Russia. Biden claimed that, already, the sanctions were achieving the administration’s intended effect of “devastating” Russia’s economy.

Biden had resisted taking the most drastic economic step of banning Russian banks from Swift, a key component in the international banking system that allows banks in different countries to transact with each other. Biden cited oil prices as one reason, since without the ability to purchase Russian oil in dollars via Swift, Western allies would effectively be removing the country’s oil production from the global pool.

Yet while the US media reported on 25 February 2022 that Biden had rebuffed calls, including from some Democrats, for the Swift ban, the the very next day, the White House and its European allies announced that a number of Russian banks would indeed be blocked from it. A White House official told CNN that the move, which Biden had nixed just 48 hours earlier at a press conference, was an “unprecedented act of global sanctions coordination”.

Predictably, within days, the price of oil had risen by 25%. It would continue to rise, eventually hitting a decade-high at $120 per barrel. But beyond oil prices, the sanctions culminating in the Swift ban presented another risk, this one strategic. On a G7 call prior to the decision, some allies of the economic block voiced the fear that, as the Financial Times reported, “removing Russia from Swift would accelerate efforts by it and China to create rival payment systems that did not use the US dollar”.

It took only a few weeks for China to capitalise on exactly this vulnerability. In March, China and Saudi Arabia began talks concerning settling oil transactions between the two countries in renminbi. By the end of the year, China turned this into an international strategy as President Xi Jinping “opened the door to trading crude oil and natural gas” in renminbi, as S&P Global reported in a December market insight report.

At the time, there was intense scepticism regarding whether China would be able to pull this off in a meaningful fashion — and for good reason. China’s capital controls, its fixed currency and a relatively shallow and illiquid capital market, relative to the dollar, have made investors wary of parking their capital in renminbi-denominated accounts.

But that was before the US leveraged the dollar as an economic weapon against a country it was not even at war with. Today, the picture is changing. In March, China completed its first liquefied natural gas trade in yuan, in this case with the UAE. The yuan is now the dominant currency for China’s own cross-border payments, a first in the country’s modern history. Brazil and Argentina announced this year they would allow renminbi payments in transactions with China. Perhaps most significantly of all, over the past year, China has paid for almost all its Russian oil in its own currency.

In case China did not have enough reason to attempt a restructuring of global trade, Biden, in the midst of Chinese efforts to shift international payments to the yuan, publicly stated that the US would respond with military force if China were to invade Taiwan. This was a break with decades of US policy, and while the administration walked back the claims the next day, it would not take a leap of imagination on the part of Chinese officials to wonder how the US would leverage the country’s role as the backbone of global trade to alter the balance of power.

This is not evidence of the kind of de-dollarisation that China and other nations have sought for decades. But it does signal a new approach to strategic relations between countries such as China and Russia — and one that has come at the severe cost of America’s ability to influence oil prices. China and Russia are now not just allies, but economically bound to each other. Russia is no longer isolated but at the centre of a new axis of power. Worst of all, even the most extreme sanctions and complete weaponisation of the dollar have proved, if not ineffectual, then at least unable to achieve their strategic aims.

And, of course, winter is coming. With oil prices soaring, the US unable to meaningfully increase production, and Ukraine mired in a faltering counter-offensive, it seems that Biden’s most virtue-signalling policies will have the effect of simultaneously limiting the country’s options on trade, energy and foreign policy. The smart move would be to tap out by walking back one (if not all) of these policies. But with the US careening into an election year and Democrats alarmed by a slate of recent polls, for Biden failure may be the only option.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

67 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
9 months ago

And the sad, sad thing is that all the unintended consequences of Biden’s policies reported by the author were utterly predictable even to a non-expert.

D Walsh
D Walsh
9 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

And guess what Biden’s solutions will be, more of the same

Maybe at this point its not fair to blame Joe, he’s a dementia patient, his handlers are to blame

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

My thoughts exactly. Who’s running the show there. It can’t be Biden. Almost every time he’s in public now he falls or trips or makes a gaffe.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’ll be NASA keeping him alive and the CIA calling the shots.

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Some of us believe that this administration is Obama’s 3rd administration. Many of the WH staff and advisors are holdovers from Obama.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Not Obama, either. He just wants to hang with his Hollywood pals. He’s Meghan Markle in a polo shirt. The CIA runs the US.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
9 months ago

You couldn’t slip a sheet of paper between Obama and the CIA.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Martin Johnson

Obama was a pot-smoking teenager when George H.W. Bush was turning the CIA into a weapon against American citizens. The Company used him to do their bidding, not the other way around.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Absolutely true, and not just in spirit, as the Obamas operate from their Kalorama mansion to direct the DNC, the White House, and congressional Democrats, and coordinate media strategy to an extent far greater than any other ex-President.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

It’s Dr. Jill Biden, just like Woodrow Wilson’s wife.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
9 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Anthony Blinken & Susan Rice

Pedro the Exile
Pedro the Exile
9 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Yeah-you’d have to be borderline senile or demented not to see that…..aha…..

Daniel P
Daniel P
9 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

It was obvious to anyone with any kind of sense, common sense.

You do not have to like Trump to have seen what was gonna happen.

Inflation is an unmitigated disaster.

The border is a ACTUALLY a crisis, not the usual manufactured, media driven kind.

Our foreign policy is an insane nightmare.

These are the same fools that gave us COVID lock downs, questionable vaccines, learning loss. God, how do we even keep count of the awful decisions and policies of the Biden administration and the democrats?

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
9 months ago

All of what you say is true, but why has so little made in the media of Biden’s obvious and embarassing u-turns in relation to the Saudis? Biden had promised the American public that he would turn the kingdom into “a pariah state” following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, yet a year ago the US President went crawling to the Crown Prince, cap in one hand and fist-bumping bin Salman with the other.
Biden had gone to the Saudis and asked them to increase production, or at least not cut it – BUT ONLY FOR ONE MONTH – to help his party’s chances in the mid-term elections. That was an absolute scandal – and it happened right out in the open, but the US and world media seemed frightened to actually do their job and report it.
If Trump had tried something similar it’s pretty safe to say that we’d have been gearing up for the umpteenth impeachment proceedings a matter of days later.
Biden’s pleas to the Saudis were rebuffed, and so, having failed to secure an increase in Oil production, Biden’s administration started the drawing down of US strategic petroleum reserves – in an attempt to hold off further gas price increases – which would not have played well with voters in the run-up to the midterms.
Those emergency petroleum reserves are – as the name implies – reserved for …. emergencies. NOT for short-term political expedience.
As with so much in the polarised world of US politics, once the Democrats have convinced themselves that their political opponents represent an existential threat to democracy, indeed to the US itself, then maybe raiding wartime emergency oil reserves to bolster Democrat candidates’ chances at the polls seems justified! Though once again the silence from the media was absolutely deafening.
But, aside from failing to convince the Saudis to boost oil production, what else happened during those negotiations?
Well, we know that Biden publicly threatened the Saudis with “Consequences” though he remained somewhat coy about what those consequences might be.
Members of Congress were rather less reticent and openly talked of removing US troops and withholding military support.
Since long before Biden’s inauguration the Saudis have been very worried by his relationship with Iran – thus not only did they dismiss Biden’s threats, they instead cut oil production further. The Saudis then released a statement that the Biden administration had pleaded with them to wait a month before cutting production, so that price increases wouldn’t come into play until after the midterm’s vote.
In response Biden threatened to withhold arms sales to the Saudis if they didn’t comply with his wishes.
Does anyone else see any parallels with Trump’s administration? That is a straight up and down quid pro quo. So, why no fuss from the media?
Using a foreign policy instrument as a threat, to manipulate domestic politics and influence election outcomes? – just the merest suggestion of such a flouting of accepted procedure was enough to get the Democrats to draft articles of impeachment against Donald Trump – which, once again failed to be proved. Yet when a far more obvious breach of the rules happens, and with far more serious consequences, then ….. nothing. The media once again chose not to notice such Behaviour from a Democrat administration, and the issue was almost immediately memory-holed.
When a handful of conservative media outlets raised the issue, the White House issued a classic “non-denial denial” – stating that “We presented Saudi Arabia with analysis to show that there was no market basis to cut production targets”.
Oh well, that’s alright then!
In truth the Saudis were only 1 of 22 OPEC countries to agree to cut oil production, and subsequently the price did not rise, but actually fell, just as they suggested it would.
Incredibly, Biden’s threats against the Saudis, to try and force a quid pro quo that would help him in an election, seemed unimportant to the mainstream media.
Once again the double standard was obvious and undeniable – though wholly unsurprising.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Excellent, detailed comment. This is why I call them the regime media – not mainstream media or legacy media or corporate media.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Seconded!

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago

Thirded

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

You’re using Empiricism and Enlightenment Rationalism to create a vertical narrative consistent with objective reality.

I find your method troubling. What you should be doing is constructing an emotional, Romantic horizontal narrative that uses subjectivity, performance theatre and existental dread to weave a more inclusive, Anti-Capitalist narrative.

That’s the problem with today’s world. Too many right wing extremists like yourself are focused on describing reality when you could be deconstructing traditional narratives. Instead you uphold colonial, cisheteronormative white supremacist consumer capitalism! All while the planet is boiling!

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

Could you run that by me once more?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

He’s speaking the language of our betters. All in jest of course.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

I’ve noted you’ve been down-voted a coupleof times (at least) – I think some people might want to clean their irony filter.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

One of my first jobs in journalism way back in the day was in a farming community. On April Fools Day I did a satirical story about mad cow disease. To me, and all the editorial staff, it appeared so ridiculous that no one would take it seriously. How wrong we were!!! I was absolutely roasted for that. There’s always a danger with satire. It is what it is.

Daniel P
Daniel P
9 months ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Because Biden is an incompetent, corrupt, politician who is also going senile.

He allowed himself to be painted into a corner by the various progressives in his party that wanted him to hate on the Suadi’s and cut domestic production of energy or at least go for the pie in the sky hope of green energy replacement overnight.

But…..low and behold they discovered inflation and energy insecurity makes the voting class very very angry and they need to figure out which promise to renege on to get out of the mess. So, let’s go to the Saudi’s and make up.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
9 months ago

At every juncture, Western governments have consistently made a policy choice that damages energy production. It’s not just the USA and it’s not just global geopolitics.

Closing safe, reliable, and fully paid off nuclear power plants in Germany. A windfall tax on marginal oil fields in the UK. The Dutch government limiting to the technical minimum all gas production from the huge Groningen field. The demolition of coal fired plants mothballed for contingency across Europe. The subsidies for building highly intermittent electricity generation (ie creators of huge price swings) displacing reliable generators from the market. The subsidies and laws promoting EVs increasing electrical demand on grids already short of power.

Many of these decisions defy economic logic *and* defy net zero logic (two of the examples increased CO2 emissions), *and* defy popular public opinion. The only consistent pattern in Western energy policy decisions is higher average energy prices and vastly greater marginal energy prices. Can all of this rationally be explained away by blamimg simple ineptitude?

My personal view is this is all deliberate, though not a conspiracy. Many influential, disparate groups in the West have a confluence of objectives that is amplifying their influence. Higher energy prices are the end for some and the means to an end for others.

The sincere environmentalist upper class (the Goldsmiths, for example) have long worried about the rest of the population using resources. Cheap energy is the prerequisite for resource extraction and consumption. Stop cheap energy and you drastically lower consumption (and living standards, but hey-ho).

Wealthy rent seekers as always are hungry for easy money. Net zero woo-woo means huge long-term subsidies are being dished out by governments for schemes that create extreme marginal (highly profitable) pricing. Financial trading platform owners are also quite happy with this as greater marginal pricing means more and more trading. Ditto the traditional financiers as these projects all need very complex (huge fee) financing arrangements.

The likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE obviously gain from higher long term oil prices. Higher oil prices also cushion the impact of rising extraction costs as their reserves become more tight. I’m sure big Western oil interests won’t be complaining either.

The resultant permanent energy crisis empowers both globalists and the technocrats and bureaucrats in national state machinery. More rules, more regulation, more international “coordination” is grist to their mill.

And lastly, those hapless socialist dreamers hoping for the utopia of state control are convinced net zero will usher in “luxury” communism. Falling living standards due to riding energy will propel the lumpen proletariat to revolt at last, perhaps.

Socialists, bankers, technocrats, globalists, bureaucrats, sheikhs, rent seekers, and the idle upper class. Very disparate special interest groups all either wanting or benefiting from higher energy prices. All exerting a common influence on governments and electorates and the media. So, guess which way energy prices will go between now and 2030…

Last edited 9 months ago by Nell Clover
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
9 months ago

Not only do we get an excellent analysis from the author that does not follow the MSM narrative but two excellent pieces of commentary from Paddy Taylor and Nell Clover that could be expanded into first class articles.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago

A rare anti-Democrat piece in the British media, the pandemic seems to be the quilting point of the string of disasters befalling this awful adminisation.
While US allies including the Afghans themselves were abandoned in Kabul, Biden required the Fed to print enough cash to cover $2000 a month helicoptered to those choosing to stay at home in lockdown.
Meanwhile, this week we’ve been lucky enough to have Gen X globalisation warrior Naomi Klein come on British TV to defend Democrat policy and deny that any leak was possible from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Last edited 9 months ago by Tyler Durden
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago

Biden is not polling “neck and neck” with DJT. Trump is 20+ points ahead. No one gives a cr*p about Biden’s degenerate son; we care that Biden has been using his crack head offspring as a bag man for decades. Hunter Biden himself said the only asset his entire family had was The Big Guy.

Please. For future articles, can the authors just acknowledge that Biden is in charge of absolutely nothing?

Daniel P
Daniel P
9 months ago

First, Biden has been an unmitigated disaster from the start.

Second, it is too late to unwind and do a 180 on these policies in any meaningful way before next year and that assumes that his own staff and the democrats would let him get away with it.

Third, I think event he biggest climate crisis folks are coming to realize that they have overreached and have no idea how to step back and take a more measured approach. They have spent too much time and too much capital on pushing the urgent crisis narrative to be able to back off and save face. They almost need Trump to win next year and undo a lot of this for them while allowing them to stand on the sideline and still scream their narrative.

People are gonna remember next fall that Trump was the one that was pushing domestic production. Heck, that is one reason the left was so pumped up to get rid of him.

Telling you, Trump has better than even odds of winning next year. He does. He has essentially locked up the nomination and people are gonna be desperate next year to get rid of Biden, even if it means Trump again.

Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
9 months ago

The US Department of Energy and Strategic oil reserves are at the lowest level since 1985. The graph looks like a waterfall.
The US is governed by anonymous cartel, whoever they are they are using a brain dead, corrupt puppet to implement the energy policy that will destroy the country.

rob clark
rob clark
9 months ago

Reflecting upon the facts pointed out in this article, I can only imagine that America’s global detractors are thinking one thing “Biden 2024!”

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

The UAW strikes against the Big 3 in the US are the result of the government mandated change to all electric vehicles. EVs have far fewer parts and require much less labor to make. They’re also a hard sell to most of the public, so fewer will be made. The car makers lose billions making EVs. So both labor and management lose from the EV mandate. That might make it hard for Democrats to win Michigan in 2024.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

This is no doubt an issue. EVs actually require a lot of labour, maybe even more than ICE vehicles, but much of it is in the manufacture of the batteries. The auto workers won’t be doing any of that so there will be less need for them and fewer jobs. It’s a huge issue.

The unions are also pissed about the ridiculous compensation paid to high level mngt. The CEOs are all making north of $20 mill, with many getting annual increases on 20% or more.

Daniel P
Daniel P
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

CEOs are generally, particularly in the US, way way overpaid.

They just are. I’ve worked with a few and I have to tell you that I found most of them to be pretty unimpressive. Just not what you would have thought when you were a new worker bee starting out. If I had to guess, I would bet you could replace the vast majority of them with someone younger and willing to do the job for 1/4 of the salary and still get better results than most of the existing ones do.

Are there exceptions? Sure. I think you could argue that Steve Jobs and Elon Musk are unique figures that actually made a difference. But then both of those guys started their companies, they were not professional executives that were groomed or brought in. Most of the rest are just financial engineers and salesman.

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

EVs do not require more labour.
EV propulsion is much less complex than ICE by a factor of 5 or 10 (counting parts).
We should allow market place to decide technological choices.
Nokia did not die because IPhone and then Android phones were subsidised.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago

Democrats will win Michigan but everything else you said is correct. The media will distort the EV conundrum until it becomes undeniable. They’ve probably got a solid two years of gaslighting until the public catches on.

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago

I am not sure car makers loose billions making EV.
Your comments about fewer parts etc are correct.
In uk, current plans forcing EV adoption were completely unrealistic, hence Sunak moving the deadline by 5 years.
Still, with no chance of uk having sufficient grid capacity (both local and national) to charge EVs en mass, nothing will happen by 2035.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

According to a CNN Headline, “Ford to lose $3 billion from EV sales to consumers this year.”

0 0
0 0
9 months ago

Biden did not make a mistake, it was all intentional, he did it pander to his base of green fanatics and those who make money of ESG. He and other elites do not care how this stuff effects regular people, such concerns are a after thought. They only care about lower orders when such thing effect their interest. We are rules by a bunch greedy, delusional, often clueless sociopaths.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
9 months ago

Face it, they want a global war and soon – it is probably no more than dates on a graph of when US (M-I-C) Power hits a minimum threshold against their perceived opponents, and they say “if we don’t go now, we’ll miss our chance”, and potentially kill many of us in an effort to preserve the narcissistic control fantasies of a few very wealthy monsters.

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

But surely if they wanted global war, they would not allow growth of China?
After collapse of communism, there was no need to facilitate Chinese economy.
Globalisation happened because destroying working and middle class of the West was in the interest of top 1% with maybe another 10 to 15% of enablers still benefitting.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
9 months ago

You don’t have to have a Phd in economics or Poli-sci to see that there’s a significant global re-alignment happening right now, yet the West lead by the US continues to act like they run the show; that they control all of the money through their own superior GDP ratings and international banking systems. “Do what we say or we’ll cut you off”. This is clearly not the case.
The West acts like “we’re dropping fossil fuels and going Net Zero so that’s just the way the world is going to be from now on”. Nope. Sorry. Not happening. What is happening is that the West is slowly realizing that Net Zero is economic suicide and the governments that represent a majority of the world’s population (and increasingly large slice of the economic pie) aren’t buying in and in fact are actively taking advantage of the situation.
We tried to clip Putin’s petro wings by setting a price cap on the oil he ships. The leverage came in the form of leaning on ship insurers to drop coverage if Russia violated the rules. Clever. Except Russia has made insurance arrangements elsewhere. The Dark Fleet merrily rides the waves.
The joyous schadenfreude of watching Germany stop giggling (dass Trump so ein Clown ist) and go into energy panic after the gas stopped flowing was made even more farcical – if that was even possible -by watching our own Trudeau refuse to sell Germany any LPG. Partly because Canada didn’t have the necessary infrastructure anyway but mostly because Trudeau and his Great Reset Gang are so hopelessly befuddled by geo-political reality that they actually thought the EU energy crisis wasn’t a problem – but a golden opportunity to go Green.
Yes the West still has some economic power but in between the double-barreled embarrassments of getting un-friended by India and celebrating take-a-Nahtzi to work day in parliament, we were informed by our finance minister in training that Canada’s GDP growth will lead the G7. This in response to the Bank of Canada’s dire news that “we ain’t got no money”.
So a little googling produced the numbers for OECD growth predictions for 2024
Canada 1.4% ahead of the USA 1.3%
The World – 2.7%
G20 Emerging economies? 3.9% (that includes members of BRICS)
India is looking at 6% growth in 2024.
So what else do we know? Canada’s unemployment rate and immigration numbers steadily increasing. Only the expanse of the Atlantic ocean saves Canada from out-dumbing the UK in migrant madness.
From the WEF – April 2022 – “Here’s why developed economies (ie; the West) must bear the $100 trillion cost of the net-zero transition in emerging markets”
Biden doesn’t get it. None of them get it.

Last edited 9 months ago by Walter Lantz
Bob Moore
Bob Moore
9 months ago

The article presents these decisions as if Biden was actually making them, which he clearly isn’t.

Last edited 9 months ago by Bob Moore
Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
9 months ago

When ideology meets physics, physics always wins. NZ pragmatism on steroids ahead if weatern govrs wish to survive. And, even then, very challenging given we ar.pst peak cheap oil. Resource.lie elsewhere. It will take time, but BRICS as the lay of the land when it comes to competitive cost structures. West will omly “compete” through errecting trade barriers. If i were a 20 y/o migrant I’d head to malaysia or indonesia and take my chances.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago

Sounds like the best possible argument for reducing the use of oil for power. Climate-change deniers are obsessed by their dismissal of renewable energy sources of power, but the geo-political nightmare of a world powered by fossil fuels produced by a few dodgy countries seems to pass them by.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Name one electrical grid in the world powered by wind and solar.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Might come as a surprise but China is actually way ahead on renewables and producing more than the rest of the world combined.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader

Mark Cook
Mark Cook
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

With many 100’s of coal !!! fired power stations to provide base load. No storage, no base load. Gas and Nuclear are needed for many years..

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Whatever woke idiots of Guardian claim is always lie.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

I think that you really should get out more!

Saul D
Saul D
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

To Jim’s question via the actual report the Guardian is referencing https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GEM-RTTT-China-2023-report-English-1.pdf
“Despite China’s undisputed leadership in large utility-scale solar and wind deployment, in 2022, fossil fuel power plants nevertheless generated two thirds of China’s electricity”
One third of electricity generation from wind or solar is about where the rest of the world is on renewables (Iceland and maybe a handful of other special cases excepted). This is after 25 years worth of development and investment and still not a long way from meeting the scale required, and still dependent on backup technologies. Nuclear remains the only grid-scale option for rapid decarbonisation of energy production and yet continues to be rejected in place of comparatively small-scale wind and solar that aren’t delivering in the timescales demanded.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You seemed to have ignored the premise of my comment. Of course no grid in the world is wholly powered by wind and solar (there are other renewable sources of course, which will probably become more important as technology permits), and probably never will be; there will be the need for fossil back-up until even that is rendered obsolete (as in due course it will be, albeit a long way into the future, if we last that long). But reducing the use of fossil fuel to its absolute minimum given economic and technological constraints is a geo-political win-win situation for all but a very few countries. Is there a reasonable argument against that?

Andrew F
Andrew F
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I would agree with you if renewables were reliable and available.
But they are not.
Besides, even if you agree with global warming, whatever West does has no real impact because most CO2 emissions happen in China, India, Africa etc.
I don’t see them committing economic suicide to follow green idiocy.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

To take your first point, renewable sources of energy are very much both reliable and available. Obviously not at the point yet where they can replace fossil fuels but they are making headway and technology will advance. But how does that invalidate my point here about the overwhelming geopolitical advantages of replacing fossil fuels as much as possible? I genuinely can’t see how you can argue against that (unless you are Russian, Gulf state etc).

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago

The policies described here are far from being virtue-signalling, since they are genuine attempts to reduce the nation’s extremely unhealthy addiction to fossil fuel energy and all of the long terms harms caused by it.
What we have here is an article that exposes the very ugly side of capitalist thinking at the cost of everything else.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Only nuclear will reduce US dependence on fossil fuels. You know this and have said it in the past.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Nuclear is only one of many policies and technologies that are needed at the state and global level.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Interestingly, the Guardian has picked up on the pylons issue. Having put the monstrosities into the sea, nobody wants to connect then up – how surprising. The latest problem is with 110 miles of high voltage lines in Norfolk.
There is a similar problem in SW Wales over about 30 miles of lines. 1000 people signed a petition to stop the pylons in South Wales. The local view was that the lines should go underground on the principle of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. But, making up a figure, if the overhead lines cost £100 million, the underground version will cost £5 billion and will potentially be more damaging to the envionment. I suggested giving everybody who signed the petition £1 million to bribe them to remove their petition.
Maybe, just maybe, these wind turbines will help – but they need to be on land and as close as possible to the point of use. No new technology will ever be invented to counter this argument. I mean ever.

Last edited 9 months ago by Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

And what are the others? For wind turbines see my comment below. For solar power you have to have storage because, ironically, solar power generates electricity when we need it least.
Storage how? Batteries are incredibly wasteful and they save the electricity as dc power. Converting the dc to ac is where the wastage comes in.

Last edited 9 months ago by Caradog Wiliams
Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago

The European Union is finalising a legally binding goal to produce 42.5% of energy from renewables by 2030. Just maybe they have solved the kind of technical issues you have dreamed up.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

And that is what it all amounts to – hopes and wishful thinking

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago

I expect not if it is legally binding. May you are just wrong?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Why is there not one single grid in the world powered by wind and solar – not one?

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Maybe you missed my China link above. Saudi are also desiging a whole city powered on renewables. https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/theline

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Grand plans for the future. It’s not like we haven’t been hearing these things for 30 years, and still not a single grid run by wind and solar.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

What do you mean by a ‘grid’? “The electricity sector in Iceland is 99.98% reliant on renewable energy” – Wikipedia but is that wrong? Sorry about the 0.02% – you must be right, especially if you exclude other renewable sources of power! I believe that there are other island communities around the world similarly sorted. Who is saying that wind and solar energy could be the sole source of energy except in particular circumstances (ie some islands’ entire ‘grid’!)?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I said wind and solar. There are a handful of grids that benefit from very specific conditions, like geothermal in Iceland and hydro in Norway. They benefit from geography. These conditions are not available to 95% of the would.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Let’s just go back to whaling, then, shall we?