Skip to content

Why Biden Keeps Lying About Energy

June 22, 2022

By Paul Homewood

 

From Michael Shellenberger:

 

 

 

 image

Just moments ago, President Joe Biden admitted, for the first time, “We need more refining capacity,” in reference to the gasoline, diesel, and other energy shortages that are contributing significantly to inflation. But he then added, “This idea that [the oil and gas firms] don’t have oil to drill and to bring up is simply not true.”

In fact, as I have been reporting, Biden killed a major oil refinery expansion on May 14, just five weeks ago, and killed a one million acre oil and gas lease proposed for Alaska on May 12. Some might dismiss Biden’s refusal to open up one million acres in Alaska, but Biden has yet to hold a single onshore lease sale and delayed multiple oil and gas lease sales a second time last week.

It would be great news if Biden has actually changed his mind, and is now planning on licensing the refinery that he killed. But he didn’t promise to do that. And, either way, he should stop gas-lighting the public about what he did.

If Biden and his aides are going to keep demanding that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies censor “misinformation,” those companies should start by censoring Biden’s claim that he has issued sufficient oil and gas licenses. He hasn’t. If he had, he wouldn’t be going to Saudi Arabia next month to beg them to produce more oil.

While Facebook and Twitter are at it, they should censor Biden for lying about why he killed the Alaska oil and gas lease. He claimed it was due to “lack of industry interest.” But that’s simply not true, as Alaska’s senior Senator pointed out.

“Citing a ‘lack of industry interest’ is nothing more than fantasy from an administration that shuns U.S. energy production,” responded Sen. Lisa Murkowski. "I can say with full certainty, based on conversations as recently as last night, that Alaska’s industry does have interest in lease sales in Cook Inlet. To claim otherwise is simply false, not to mention stunningly short-sighted.”

Shortly before Biden spoke today, the CEO of Chevron published an open letter to the president. “We need clarity and consistency on policy matters ranging from leases and permits on federal lands,” wrote Michael K. Wirth, “to the ability to permit and build critical infrastructure, to the proper role of regulation that considers both costs and benefits.”

I have now caught Biden and his administration officials in three flagrant lies about refinery capacity, oil drilling, and investor attitudes. In his attack on oil and gas companies, Biden falsely alleged that they were restricting refinery operations when they are, in reality, at 94% of the capacity and maintenance is being delayed. And yesterday, I discovered that Biden’s Director of the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, had misrepresented a survey of oil and gas executives while speaking to Fox News.

Deese correctly noted that the survey by the Dallas Federal Reserve had found that 94% of energy executives blamed factors other than government regulations for their unwillingness to invest in expanded production. But he failed to note that, in the words of Barron’s, the business publication, "the executives laid into Biden for getting in the industry’s way."

The broader lie is that the US government, powerful banks, and major corporations, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, have redirected investments away from oil and gas and toward renewables, including ethanol. Indeed, much of the loss of refinery capacity is because several refineries are being retrofitted to process biofuels rather than petroleum.

Rather than confront the energy crisis head on, Biden and his administration have apparently decided to a) demand censorship of their critics, b) scapegoat the only people who can end the energy crisis, and c) lie about their own role in creating the crisis. It is a transparently counterproductive strategy, one which is antagonizing the energy industry, worsening investor confidence, and alienating voters.

Biden’s is a strategy that makes him look like a child and oil and gas executives like grown-ups. Wrote Wirth, “we need an honest dialogue… We can only meet these challenges by working together.”

But if Biden’s strategy is so counterproductive, why does he keep pursuing it?

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-biden-keeps-lying-about-energy

10 Comments
  1. June 22, 2022 9:10 am

    Reblogged this on delboydave and commented:
    The western world is doomed if this imbecile of a President remains in office for much longer. It is clear he is suffering from senile dementia. Why else would he like & contradict himself so blatantly if he wasn’t mentally challenged?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      June 22, 2022 9:23 am

      He’s (a) a politicians, (b) a Democrat politician and (c) a Democrat politician chosen by the most Left-wing cabal of Progessives ever seen in the US. He says what he’s told to say. That it’s all a contradictory mess of nonsense is not a surprise.

      • Duker permalink
        June 23, 2022 6:39 am

        Hello ? He defeated Bernie the darling of the left wing progressives.

        However the voters decided who was President and he got the most votes in history ( nearly 20 mill more than 2016 winner) and the highest turnout since around 1900 when McKinley was elected

  2. Hervé permalink
    June 22, 2022 10:04 am

    Even if Joe suddenly retires from politics, no change will occur: What he says is blessed by the entire “Democrats” cabal group in power. They are the long lasting Amerika killer-virus because many of them are still young and totally formatted.

  3. ThinkingScientist permalink
    June 22, 2022 10:27 am

    Shellenberger is the man. His book Apocalypse Never is outstanding. Just need to persuade him now that the foundations of climate science are even dodgier than he thinks – we need to merge Shellenberger with Koonin!

  4. ThinkingScientist permalink
    June 22, 2022 10:29 am

    For another unsavory take on the democrats I highly recommend reading Blackout by Candace Owens

  5. June 22, 2022 10:48 am

    The obvious solution to the pursuit of zero carbon is to use the available technologies to enable every house to go off-grid, alongwith small gardens where householders can grow vegetables and have a small greenhouse. Funny this solution is never headlined.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      June 22, 2022 11:08 am

      Without a huge drop in standard of living its not possible. Simple demonstration in a small living space – in a caravan in summer off grid with a solar panel on the roof, charged battery, the hot water, cooking, kettle and fridge run on gas we can go about 4 days before the battery is in danger of being permanently damaged (and I have done this by accident in the past when the solar panel failed – expensive reaplcing a 130 AmpHour leisure battery). Note – still uses fossil fuels to run the hot water, cooking, fridge and, in winter, the heating.

      My caravan was new in 2014 with a new solar panel. Failed in 2017 and replaced. Failed again 2020 and going to be replaced this Q3. Not reliable technology and batteries do not last forever and MUST be very carefully managed. IF you lived in Namibia you could live off grid with a big solar array and battery system, but not here in the UK.

      Personally I am seriously looking at home backup generators at around the 11 KVa size for when the lights go out.

      • June 25, 2022 10:41 am

        Agree – there are problems. Total self-sufficiency especially in northern countries might as well be impossible. But anything in that direction reduces fuel use, without reducing quality of life much, is a good idea.

        What the authorities are suggesting seems taking away access to our present resources, but without replacing them with anything? A much greater fall in living conditions.

        That they are not proposing self-sufficiency is suspect in contrast to how urgent they are presenting the situation. They seem to be proposing total dependency where they can use the off switch, rationing, as they choose.

        Re self sufficiency. I grew up in a cottage in the countryside, northern climate, which was beyond the power supply and water connection. We had a garden and greenhouse. We weren’t trying to be off-grid or self-sufficient, but we were very close. But – solid fire heating. That would now be a problem. Without the modern technologies which are available. (Fifties)

        Yes – we would be dependant on batteries.

  6. June 27, 2022 2:53 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: