For several years now, it&#8217;s been clear that the Biden administration has been thinking about officially declaring a &#8220;climate emergency.&#8221; Beginning on the day Biden took office, several politicians have floated the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/president-biden-shouldnt-declare-climate-change-national-emergency" target="_blank" rel="noopener">possibility</a> — and some have gone further than that.
The Democrats&#8217; leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, publicly <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden-climate-emergency/biden-should-declare-national-emergency-on-climate-schumer-idUSW1N2BC01P/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> on Biden to make the declaration within a week of his inauguration. And ever since then, there have been <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/20/climate-emergency-biden-consequences-00046885" target="_blank" rel="noopener">articles</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-emergency-biden.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deep-dives</a> in various outlets, including Politico and The New York Times, suggesting that it&#8217;d be a really good idea to essentially go to war with the weather.
As of now, as his term winds down, Joe Biden has resisted all of these demands. Biden has said that he&#8217;s &#8220;practically&#8221; declared a climate emergency — signaling that he likes the idea — but he hasn&#8217;t actually gone ahead and done it. Even so, the demands have kept coming for several years — which is a little odd, when you think about it. The definition of the word &#8220;emergency&#8221; is: &#8220;a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.&#8221; The very fact that you have to deliberate for three years about whether something is an emergency would seem to indicate that it is not.
So this is the most important point: There is not, in fact, a climate emergency — and everyone pushing this hysteria understands that very well. But they will never stop pretending this is an urgent crisis, because the moment they do that, they lose some measure of control over our lives.
The Biden administration&#8217;s flirtation with this whole idea also tells you something else, which is that the White House sees an emergency climate declaration as a potential nuclear option to deploy when they get really desperate. And with pretty much every major poll showing Donald Trump leading Joe Biden, that desperation has understandably now set in.
Right on cue, a climate emergency is now back on the agenda. According to Bloomberg, the White House is now seriously <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-17/white-house-renews-internal-talks-on-invoking-climate-emergency?embedded-checkout=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">considering</a> the idea in the near future. CBS recently spoke to a Columbia climate professor about this. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 Biden Climate Emergency" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jpE7hZeAx5M?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the administration, by declaring a climate emergency, would supposedly unlock massive new powers over the economy and especially the oil industry. Of course, the administration has already done everything it can to gut the energy sector in this country. They&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suspended</a> new oil and gas leases; they&#8217;ve scrutinized and shut down many existing permits for the development of fossil fuels; and, just for good measure, they&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/16/biden-oil-reserve-fuels-00121298#:~:text=Biden's%20administration%20sold%20off%20more,levels%20since%20the%20early%201980s." target="_blank" rel="noopener">sold off</a> much of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, just to make sure we&#8217;re as reliant as possible on foreign energy.
What Biden wants to do now is to adopt new powers to destroy the economy, which exceed the powers he’s already employed. Specifically, these new emergency powers would potentially <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-emergency-biden.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">include</a> the ability to ban all crude oil exports, indefinitely. Right now, we export millions of barrels of oil per day, accounting for tens of billions of dollars in revenue. All of that could disappear overnight in the event of an emergency climate declaration. Additionally, the Biden administration would be able to kill all new oil and gas drilling on more than 10 million acres of federal waters. They&#8217;d also be able to cut overseas investments in fossil fuels and greatly reduce imports and exports of fossil fuels.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1355-the-government-is-gearing-up-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-which-will-wipe-out-what-s-left-of-our-freedoms-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
That&#8217;s according to various media publications that have looked into the emergency powers already. But the truth is, once it declares a national emergency, the federal government can pretty much do what it wants. The courts give the alleged &#8220;experts&#8221; vast and completely undeserved deference. There are no guardrails in a national emergency. Everyone knows that after experiencing the COVID lockdowns (which, of course, were the pretext to the coming climate emergency). There were never any consequences for those lockdowns or mandates. There hasn’t really been any reckoning with the destruction those policies wrought on our lives. There’s been no accountability. Nobody even seems interested in talking about it. So now they&#8217;re doing it again. And make no mistake: If they can force the entire country to stay at home because of a virus — including young people, who are at virtually no risk from that virus — then they can absolutely restrict every single one of your freedoms in the name of &#8220;saving the climate.&#8221;
But just in case you needed confirmation, you can always look north to our perennially embarrassing neighbors in Canada. 
Several years ago, Canada&#8217;s government <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5401586/canada-national-climate-emergency/">declared</a> a national climate emergency. And just to drive the point home, several major cities within Canada, including Vancouver, declared their own climate emergencies. At the time, the idea behind this emergency was to enable the Canadian government to take steps to reduce the country&#8217;s carbon emissions — even though the entire country of Canada essentially emits zero carbon compared to the rest of the world. The whole country could commit mass suicide — which they’re sort of in the process of doing — and it would have no impact on global carbon emissions. Even so, Canada enacted a bunch of carbon taxes that made life even more expensive for its citizens.
It&#8217;s worth noting quickly — although I&#8217;ve made this point many times before — that even if you buy into the idea that carbon causes climate change, there is nothing that the U.S. — much less Canada — can do about it.
As Zach Weinberg <a href="https://x.com/zachweinberg/status/1783320440531783719">pointed</a> out this week, China and India comprise the vast majority of carbon emissions in the world. The U.S. accounts for less than 15% of carbon emissions, and we&#8217;re falling fast. Canada is well under 2%. So the whole idea of taxing carbon to reduce emissions and save the planet was always a scam, even if you subscribe to the Left&#8217;s theories on climate change.
But it was never going to stop there. Again, once you declare an emergency, without any clear way to solve it, things will continue to escalate. Give the government vast, undefined powers, and rights will continue to erode until they&#8217;re all gone. As Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” And Canada, once again, is a perfect example.
Earlier this year, in the name of saving the climate during this supposed emergency, Canadian legislators introduced a bill to suspend freedom of speech. Canada&#8217;s NDP party — which is a key part of the coalition keeping Justin Trudeau&#8217;s government in power — introduced legislation that would actually make it illegal to speak positively about fossil fuels.
Yes. That’s not an exaggeration. This legislation would make it illegal to express positive opinions about fossil fuels, in any context. 
As <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ndp-bill-jail-terms-fossil-fuels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canada&#8217;s National Post</a> states:
<blockquote>An NDP bill is seeking to criminalize the promotion of fossil fuels, and prescribe jail time even for Canadians who say scientifically true things — such as how burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal. .. [the bill] goes well beyond merely banning advertising by oil and gas companies. &#8230; Violate this as a regular citizen, and the act prescribes summary conviction and a fine of up to $500,000. Violate it as an oil company, and the punishment could be as strict as two years in jail or a fine of $1,000,000.</blockquote>
Even after reading this article, I still couldn&#8217;t believe it, so I pulled up the text of the bill. And the <a href="https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1782543641979809850">text</a> of the bill indeed says that, 
<blockquote>It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel… (b) in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.</blockquote>
So basically, private citizens who say anything good about fossil fuels can be fined $500,000, which is enough of a fine to completely bankrupt 95% of Canada&#8217;s population for life. You can&#8217;t even say the Indians would benefit from fossil fuels, even though many Indians in Canada would disagree with that statement.
To be clear, this is not one rogue politician introducing this bill. Canada&#8217;s federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has <a href="https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ndp-calls-ban-misleading-deceptive-213156982.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> he &#8220;welcomes&#8221; the bill. And various members of Canada&#8217;s public health establishment have endorsed it.
Take a look at this press conference from the NDP announcing this legislation. It&#8217;s like something out of a satire film, but it&#8217;s real. It&#8217;s not overstating things to say this is the single most demented press conference to occur in the Western world in at least the last decade. At the very least, it&#8217;s in the top 5. Here&#8217;s just some of it:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 NDP MP Charlie Angus On Fosil Fuels" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8gqxHWlUg9c?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Apparently, everyone knows their kids can&#8217;t even go outside in Canada without choking on fossil fuels. That&#8217;s the position of a member of Canada&#8217;s parliament, who again, is trying to put Canadians in prison — and bankrupt them — if they disagree with him.
I listened to that whole press conference, even though it was excruciating because they spoke in French for half of it. It was a half-hour of Canadian public health &#8220;experts&#8221; and politicians saying that they&#8217;re right, and everyone who disagrees with them needs to be jailed. Keep in mind, everyone promoting this legislation got every conceivable aspect of COVID wrong. But they have no shame, only a desire for more power. So they&#8217;re back. Everything is a &#8220;public health&#8221; emergency now, even the weather.
The press conference concluded with a question-and-answer session with Canadian media, which was even more surreal, somehow. None of the journalists seemed outraged in any way by what they had just heard. Instead, they mostly asked procedural questions about when the bill might come up for a vote. In fact, one reporter even asked if Russia was helping the fossil fuel companies spread disinformation. If you want to lose all faith in Western democracy, I recommend you go to YouTube and pull up the footage from this press conference yourself. It&#8217;s almost unbelievable.
The point of talking about Canada isn&#8217;t to suggest that we should care about Canada. That would be absurd. The whole country just <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/canadas-mass-graves-hoax-is-yet-another-fabricated-narrative-to-demonize-christians">pretended</a> that sewage sites were burial grounds for children, in order to justify burning dozens of churches. This is not a serious or ethical place we&#8217;re talking about. And the Canadian people have mostly given up on their country and on themselves, so good riddance. Let the country burn. This is what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard.
But Canada does have one purpose, which is to serve as a bellwether of what we can expect in this country if we get too complacent. If we allow Joe Biden to declare a &#8220;climate emergency,&#8221; then he won&#8217;t simply dismantle the energy sector in this country and destroy our economy. Give him a few years, and he&#8217;ll throw you in prison if you complain about it. (Or at least, his successor will). Those are the stakes.
It&#8217;s not worth going through how climate activists have lied for generations about the &#8220;emergency&#8221; — I&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chqcyf0Y35g">done</a> that many times before, as have many others. At this point, they know they&#8217;re liars, which is why their ultimate goal is to silence you. That&#8217;s why Joe Biden wants to declare his climate emergency. Unless we want to end up like Canada, which is a fate worse than death, we have to prevent it from happening.

President Biden Returns To White House From Florida

The Government Is Gearing Up To Declare A ‘Climate Emergency,’ Which Will Wipe Out What’s Left Of Our Freedoms

Canada

Climate Change

Fossil Fuels

Joe Biden

Matt Walsh

Oil and Gas

Opinion

Readers Pass

A fanatical environmentalist group claimed it wrecked a gala at which Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski was to be honored by a major oil company and called her a “murderer” and an “ecocidal pyromaniac.”
A video posted by the group Climate Defiance, a self-proclaimed “youth-led group using direct action to resist fossil fuels,” showed people storming a stage and tussling with other participants at the event.
“We just shut down a gala honoring U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski,” the group tweeted. “Murkowski is a murderer. She incinerates us to enrich her cronies. As Chevron&#8217;s top lobbyist gave her an award, we stepped in and stopped the ceremony. Respect us or expect us.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: We just shut down a gala honoring U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. Murkowski is a murderer. She incinerates us to enrich her cronies. As Chevron&#39;s top lobbyist gave her an award, we stepped in and stopped the ceremony. Respect us or expect us. 🧵 <a href="https://t.co/Q72mHerpdg">pic.twitter.com/Q72mHerpdg</a>
&mdash; Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateDefiance/status/1780981172442415450?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Murkowski brands herself as a moderate but in truth she is an ecocidal pyromaniac. She fought tooth and nail to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to big oil. Is nothing sacred? Is nothing sacred?” they continued.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Murkowski brands herself as a moderate but in truth she is an ecocidal pyromaniac. She fought tooth and nail to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to big oil. Is nothing sacred? Is nothing sacred? (2/5) <a href="https://t.co/PTcG8TvSvz">pic.twitter.com/PTcG8TvSvz</a>
&mdash; Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateDefiance/status/1780981174296289352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Murkowski played a lead role in persuading Biden to approve the Willow Project. This monstrosity will transport 200,000 barrels of oil every single day. This is hideous. This is cruel and barbaric beyond description,” they added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Murkowski played a lead role in persuading Biden to approve the Willow Project. This monstrosity will transport 200,000 barrels of oil every single day. This is hideous. This is cruel and barbaric beyond description. (3/5)
&mdash; Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateDefiance/status/1780981176565461073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19,286,722 acres in northeastern Alaska. Polar bears, grizzly bears, and American black bears reside within the Refuge, along with moose, caribou, wolves, and foxes. In August 2020, the Department of opened 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for drilling, less than 1% of the area of the ANWR. On January 20, 2021, President Biden, on his first day in office, implemented a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">moratorium</a> on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1713449380053000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0e-HYFsZYxlnnLDshKhFqj">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Referring to the coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Survey has <a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>, “Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.”
“Total petroleum imports into the United States amounted to 8.5 million barrels per day in 2023,” <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/191251/total-petroleum-imports-into-the-us-since-2000/#:~:text=Total%20petroleum%20imports%20into%20the,petroleum%20imported%20into%20the%20U.S." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Statista</a> reported.
If 7.7 billion barrels could be retrieved from the ANWR, that would constitute importation of 8.5 million barrels for 905 years, assuring American energy independence for nearly a millennium.

2023 JDRF Children’s Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing

‘Murderer … Ecocidal Pyromaniac’: Radical Eco-Group Claims It Stormed Stage, Wrecked Murkowski Event

Alaska

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Environmentalists

Lisa Murkowski

Politics

White House Press Secretary <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/karine-jean-pierre" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Karine Jean-Pierre</a> appeared to short-circuit during Wednesday&#8217;s briefing, struggling to come up with an answer when pressed on President Joe Biden&#8217;s decision not to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as previously promised.
Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy prefaced his question with a reminder that Biden had promised to refill the SPR, claiming that he was only draining it to compensate for the spike in gas prices that he had blamed on Russian President Vladimir Putin and his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
&#8220;First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with ‘the Putin Price Hike’ a few years ago. Said you were going to refill it. But now it doesn&#8217;t seem like that&#8217;s happening. Why?&#8221; Doocy asked.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
DOOCY TIME: “First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with ‘the Putin Price Hike’ a few years ago. Said You were going to refill it. But now it doesn&#39;t seem like that&#39;s happening. Why?”
KJP: “Well, from — I believe the Department… <a href="https://t.co/K5v77241lM">pic.twitter.com/K5v77241lM</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1775580441791103014?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jean-Pierre delivered a halting response, shifting responsibility to the Department of Energy and suggesting that the issue was not so much whether or not it would be refilled, but how that would eventually come about.
&#8220;Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that, so I would refer to the Department of Energy. I know there are certain components to that and how they were going to move forward and refilling — refilling it. Uh — I — they would have had more specifics on that for you,&#8221; she said.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-nixes-plan-to-help-refill-strategic-petroleum-reserve" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reports broke</a> earlier on Wednesday stating that the Biden administration would not be refilling the SPR as originally planned, citing the high cost of oil as a barrier to getting that done.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Department of Energy has canceled its latest tender for crude oil for the replenishment of the strategic petroleum reserve after oil prices moved higher than the DoE is comfortable with.
Last month, the DoE purchased 2.8 million barrels at a price of $81 per barrel, which… <a href="https://t.co/PDu7IwP7or">pic.twitter.com/PDu7IwP7or</a>
&mdash; Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) <a href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1775534236646211929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We will not award the current solicitations for the Bayou Choctaw SPR site and will solicit available capacity as market conditions allow,&#8221; the Department of Energy said. &#8220;We will continue to monitor market dynamics.&#8221;
Daniel Turner, founder and executive director for Power The Future, released a statement on the move, saying, &#8220;[President] Joe Biden drained the SPR for political reasons, cut our domestic production for his climate agenda, and now he’s leaving our critical reserve more vulnerable because he’s incompetent. As a result, Americans are paying more at the pump, more at the grocery store and our SPR is less full during a time of rising turmoil in the Middle East.&#8221;

White House Press Briefing Held By Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre

Karine Jean-Pierre Scrambles When Asked Why Biden Isn’t Moving Ahead With Plan To Refill Oil Reserves

Karine Jean-Pierre Scrambles When Asked Why Biden Isn't Moving Ahead With Plan To Refill Oil Reserves

Karine Jean-Pierre

Media

Peter Doocy

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Ukraine-Russia War

Vladimir Putin

Guyana President Mohamed Irfaan Ali slammed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/bbc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC</a> reporter in an interview this week for claiming that his small nation was contributing to climate change by allowing oil drilling off its coast.
BBC journalist Stephen Sackur suggested that Ali was wrong for allowing the drilling and asked him if he had the &#8220;right&#8221; to do so.
&#8220;Let&#8217;s take a big picture look at what&#8217;s going on here. Over the next decade, two decades, it is expected that there will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted off your coast,&#8221; Sackur said. &#8220;It&#8217;s an extraordinary figure. But think of it in practical terms. That means, according to many experts, more than 2 billion tons of carbon emissions will come from your seabed from those reserves and be released into the atmosphere.&#8221;
&#8220;Let me stop you right there,&#8221; Ali fired back. &#8220;Let me stop you right there. Do you know that Guyana has a forest, forever, that is the size of England and Scotland combined? The forest stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive, a forest that we have kept alive.&#8221;
&#8220;Does that give you the right to release all of this carbon?&#8221; Sackur asked.
&#8220;Does that give you the right to lecture us on climate change?&#8221; Ali fired back. &#8220;I am going to lecture you on climate change because we have kept this forest alive that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon that you enjoy, that the world enjoys, that you don&#8217;t pay us for, that you don&#8217;t value, that you don&#8217;t see a value in, that the people of Guyana has kept alive.&#8221;
&#8220;Guess what? We have in the lowest deforestation rate in the world. And guess what? Even with our greatest exploration of the oil and gas resource we have now, we will still be net zero, Guyana will still be net zero with all our exploration,&#8221; he continued.
Sackur tried to cut Ali off, but Ali kept firing away.
&#8220;I am not finished yet. I am just not finished as yet,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Because this is a hypocrisy that exists in the world. We, the world in the last 50 years, has lost 65% of all its biodiversity. We have kept our biodiversity. Are you valuing it? Are you ready to pay for it? When is the developed world going to pay for it? Or are you in the pockets of those who have damaged the environment? Are you and your system in the pockets of those who destroyed the environment through the Industrial Revolution and now lecturing us? Are you in their pockets? Are you paid by them?&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The President of Guyana brought a wrecking ball to the BBC, which tried to guilt trip him and his country for exporting natural resources. <a href="https://t.co/S5Md9Eh90j">pic.twitter.com/S5Md9Eh90j</a>
&mdash; Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1774258883281965085?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

2023 Concordia Annual Summit – September 18

Guyana President Wrecks BBC Reporter Trying To Lecture Him On Climate Change: ‘I Am Going To Lecture You!’

Environmentalism

South America

World

The startup <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/electric-cars" target="_blank" rel="noopener">electric car</a> company Fisker said this week that it is halting the production of its vehicles to raise $150 million in emergency funds as it grapples with a cash crunch spurred by a low demand for electric vehicles.
The California-based company, which says its mission is to &#8220;create the world’s most emotional and sustainable electric vehicles,&#8221; has barely produced over a thousand electric vehicles worldwide for the year.
&#8220;The company has approximately 4,700 vehicles in its currently inventory, carried over from 2023 and including 2024 production,&#8221; the company said. &#8220;While it has not completed an NRV analysis for 2024, Fisker believes the completed vehicle value for its inventory as of March 15, 2024, is in excess of $200 million.&#8221;
&#8220;Fisker will pause production for six weeks starting the week of March 18, 2024, to align inventory levels and progress strategic and financing initiatives,&#8221; it added.
Reuters <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ev-startup-fisker-sell-166-115743611.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> last month that signals from the car company indicated that there was &#8220;substantial doubt about its ability to continue&#8221; due to the financial health of the company.
The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/electric-vehicle-startup-fisker-prepares-for-possible-bankruptcy-filing-26e63d32" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> last week that the company hired outside help to assist with a possible bankruptcy filing.
The company&#8217;s struggles comes as the Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would continue its efforts to destroy the gas-powered car industry by implementing the most extreme pollution restrictions in history on automakers.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The Washington Post, which called the effort “controversial,” <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/03/20/biden-car-emissions-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that the rule will force automakers “to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while slashing carbon emissions from gasoline-powered models.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed that its national pollution standard, which could end up getting killed in the courts, would prevent more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions, which it claimed would provide $100 billion in annual benefits to the U.S.
The announcement was met with swift backlash online across the political Right, who warned that Biden’s agenda would damage the American car industry.
&#8220;Biden’s latest ban on gas-powered vehicles and replacement with electric vehicles is another direct assault on consumer choice and the American way of life,&#8221; said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). &#8220;It ignores the needs of American families in order to appease the radical environmental lobby at the expense of millions of jobs supported by the automotive industry. It’s time to put an end to this regulatory overreach.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-finalizes-plan-to-kill-off-gas-cars-in-u-s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden Finalizes Plan To Kill Off Gas Cars In U.S.</a>

SWITZERLAND-AUTO-SHOW

EV Startup Fisker Halts Production To Raise Emergency Funds Amid Cash Crunch From Low Demand

Business

Economy

Electric cars

Money

President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> has finalized the most extreme push in history to destroy the gas-powered car industry and force consumers to drive what will be, in effect, government mandated electric vehicles.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-backing-away-from-aggressive-push-for-electric-vehicles-as-consumer-demand-remains-low" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> last month that the administration was going to back off its push to force consumers to only purchase EVs as demand for EVs has nosedived in recent years.
However, the administration ultimately caved to far-Left environmentalist groups and activists who demanded the most aggressive effort ever to eliminate combustion engine vehicles.
The Washington Post, which called the effort &#8220;controversial,&#8221; <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/03/20/biden-car-emissions-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that the rule will force automakers &#8220;to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while slashing carbon emissions from gasoline-powered models.&#8221;
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed that its national pollution standard, which could end up getting killed in the courts, would prevent more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions, which it claimed would provide $100 billion in annual benefits to the U.S.
The announcement was met with swift backlash online across the political Right, who warned that Biden&#8217;s agenda would damage the American car industry.
&#8220;Biden&#8217;s extreme climate agenda will crush America’s auto industry and its hard workers while making us MORE dependent on China,&#8221; said Republican Senate candidate Dave McCormick. &#8220;And the irony of it all? Biden will increase global emissions by restricting LNG exports and sourcing lithium needed for batteries from China&#8217;s mines!&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded: &#8220;Biden’s latest ban on gas-powered vehicles and replacement with electric vehicles is another direct assault on consumer choice and the American way of life.  It ignores the needs of American families in order to appease the radical environmental lobby at the expense of millions of jobs supported by the automotive industry. It&#8217;s time to put an end to this regulatory overreach.&#8221;
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) called the agenda &#8220;restrictive and unnecessary,&#8221; and said that Americans should be able to &#8220;choose the best car for their needs.&#8221;

President Biden And First Lady Host Women’s History Month Reception

Biden Finalizes Plan To Kill Off Gas Cars In U.S.

Executive

Gasoline

The Biden administration will likely complete regulations this week designed to punish gas-powered vehicles and pave the way for electric vehicles, whose average cost is roughly more than twice as expensive as average subcompact car.
In its <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-05-05/pdf/2023-07974.pdf">proposed rules</a> published in May 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency wrote that it wanted to target vehicles that would phase-in over model years 2027 through 2032, stating, “EPA finds it appropriate to set new standards for model years after 2026 for both criteria pollutants and GHG at this time, rather than continuing its prior approach of coordinating the standards but setting them in separate regulatory actions.
“It certainly won&#8217;t do anything to improve human health. It won&#8217;t do anything to reduce pollution,” American Energy Institute president and CEO Jason Isaac, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-finalize-major-gas-car-crackdown-warnings-from-automakers-energy-industry?intcmp=tw_fnc">told</a> Fox News Digital. “We&#8217;ve proven in this country that we&#8217;re already a world leader in clean air. All it&#8217;s going to continue to do is push the costs of electric vehicles on to purchasers of internal combustion engine vehicles. This is purely being done for campaign reasons — to really appease the leftist large donor base that are the climate alarmists that are driving this movement towards really what is a forced energy transition, which is just increasing the cost of everything.”
“President Biden has been clear since 2020 that he intends to use his federal agencies, and the State of California, to eliminate sales of new gas cars,” American Fuel &amp; Petrochemical Manufacturers president and CEO Chet Thompson added. “While multiple administration policies push us toward this end, the EPA&#8217;s passenger vehicle standards will do most of the damage on their own — requiring approximately 70% of new car sales to be electric in less than eight years. This policy is bad for consumers, the economy and national security. It will sacrifice our hard-won U.S. energy strength for even greater dependence on China and the EV battery and mineral supply chain China controls.”
“In 2022, California finalized the Advanced Clean Cars II rule that will require, by 2035, all new light-duty vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles, with New York, Massachusetts, and Washington state following suit, likely to be followed by Oregon and Vermont as well,” the EPA wrote. “Several other states may adopt similar provisions as members of the International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance.”
“For light-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing standards that would increase in stringency each year over a six-year period, from MYs 2027–2032,” the EPA stated. “The proposed standards are projected to result in an industry-wide average target for the light-duty fleet of 82 grams/mile (g/mile) of CO2 in MY 2032, representing a 56 percent reduction in projected fleet average GHG emissions target levels from the existing MY 2026 standards.”
“EPA is proposing more stringent emissions standards for criteria pollutants for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for MYs 2027– 2032,” the agency wrote, adding:
<blockquote>
For light-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing non-methane organic gases (NMOG) plus nitrogen oxides (NOX) standards that would phase-down to a fleet average level of 12 mg/mi by MY 2032, representing a 60 percent reduction from the existing 30 mg/mi standards for MY 2025 established in the Tier 3 rule in 2014. For medium- duty vehicles, EPA is proposing NMOG+NOX standards that would require a fleet average level of 60 mg/ mi by MY 2032, representing a 66 percent to 76 percent reduction from the Tier 3 standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles. EPA is proposing cold temperature (¥7 °C) NMOG+NOX standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles to ensure robust emissions control over a broad range of operating conditions. For both light-duty and all medium- duty vehicles, EPA is proposing a particulate matter (PM) standard of 0.5 mg/mi and a requirement that the standard be met across three test cycles, including a cold temperature (¥7 °C) test.
</blockquote>

President Joe Biden

Biden Administration Set To Complete Regulations Targeting Gas-Powered Vehicles

Biden Administration

electric vehicles

Transportation

New Mexico may be small in terms of population, but we are the second largest producer of oil. We punch well above our weight when it comes to American energy and that’s becoming a problem for President Joe Biden.
New <a href="https://powerthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FINAL-PTF-New-Mexico-Statewide-Survey.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">polling data</a> show Biden’s support in our state plummeting. With an approval rating of just 41% and a disapproval rating of 57%, Biden finds himself 16 points underwater. This decline is particularly worrying for the President, given that he won New Mexico by a comfortable <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-faces-dire-disapproval-ratings-among-hispanics-in-state-he-won-big-in-2020-poll" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10-point margin</a> during the 2020 election.
One of the significant concerns for Biden is the erosion of his support among Hispanics. While a 2022 poll indicated a 53% approval rating among the Hispanic community, that number has dropped dramatically to a mere 36% today. This marks a significant 17-point dip in less than two years. Keep in mind, Hispanics make up more of the population in New Mexico than in any other state. We are a minority-majority state. If they’re abandoning Biden here, they’re likely doing so in other states too.
The top issues of concern in New Mexico revolve around the economy, crime, illegal immigration, and the cost of living. Unfortunately for Biden, these are precisely the areas where he is failing to resonate with voters.
A particularly contentious issue is Biden&#8217;s complete embrace of the green agenda. Having worked in the natural gas industry for 30 years, this is personal for me. A staggering 54% of New Mexicans believe the oil and natural gas industry is the most crucial sector for the state&#8217;s economy, surpassing all other industries combined. Despite New Mexico being the nation&#8217;s second-largest oil producer, Biden often attacks this vital industry. Recently, his administration canceled all exports of liquefied natural gas, a devastating blow for our foreign buyers, our allies in Europe.
Adding insult to injury, the recent actions of President Joe Biden and New Mexico&#8217;s Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/michelle-lujan-grisham" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michelle Lujan Grisham</a> regarding the imposition of regulations on natural gas production in our state are concerning to say the least. Despite New Mexico&#8217;s position as a national energy leader, these onerous rules seem to be aimed at hindering rather than promoting the industry that supports our state.
It is particularly disheartening to note that these regulations were announced by the Biden administration and Governor Grisham while they attended an elitist United Nations climate conference in Dubai. This exclusive gathering, held thousands of miles away from our state, hardly seems like an appropriate venue for discussing and implementing policies that will directly impact our energy industry.
Furthermore, the practical result of these regulations is effectively a tax on natural gas production. This additional financial burden on the industry can only serve to stifle growth and hinder job creation in our state. It is puzzling why our leaders would choose to impose such fees when New Mexico plays such a crucial role in meeting the nation&#8217;s energy needs.
Additionally, electric vehicles (EVs) have become a contentious topic in New Mexico. While Governor Grisham was on Biden’s shortlist for vice president and is pushing for EV mandates, it is evident that New Mexicans oppose such measures. A staggering 59% of voters oppose EV mandates, with 72% believing they will lead to increased costs. This opposition to EVs further compounds Biden&#8217;s difficulties in securing support from the citizens of New Mexico.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-divided-states-of-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: &#8220;The Divided States of Biden with Ben Shapiro&#8221; on DailyWire+</a></h4>
If the economy is the primary concern, Biden&#8217;s pursuit of the green agenda is undoubtedly a major obstacle to overcome in this small state. With the majority of New Mexicans understanding the pivotal role that the oil and natural gas industry plays in their economy, the president&#8217;s attacks on this sector have been met with strong resistance. Furthermore, the push for EV mandates has faced overwhelming opposition, with voters expressing concerns over increased costs.
The results speak for themselves: what is important to the people isn’t important to Joe Biden. He could be focusing on policies that prioritize the state&#8217;s economic growth, address crime concerns, tackle illegal immigration effectively, and alleviate the rising cost of living, but his agenda won’t allow it.
Our little state is sending a big message to Joe Biden, but it’s doubtful he will ever listen.
* * *
Senator David Gallegos (R) represents some of the most productive energy land in the entire country. He worked for over 30 years in the natural gas industry before being elected to the state legislature in 2013 where he continually fights for American energy independence, 2nd Amendment rights, and the Right-to-Life. Senator Gallegos proudly lives in the Permian Basin in the town of Eunice, New Mexico with his wife.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On The Inflation Reduction Act And Clean Energy

This Small State Is Sending A Big Message To Joe Biden

2024 Election

Energy

Green New Deal

Natural gas

New Mexico

Polls

The Iranian Navy claimed on Thursday to have seized an American oil tanker in the waters of the Sea of Oman, according to the <a href="https://en.mehrnews.com/news/210657/Iran-Navy-seizes-US-oil-tanker-in-Sea-of-Oman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mehr news agency</a>, a semi-official news agency of the Iranian government.
The report said Iran claimed the seizure of the St. Nikolas, previously named the Suez Rajan, was in retaliation for the “violation of the Suez Rajan ship in May of this year and the theft of Iranian oil by the United States.” According to The New York Times, the ship is actually registered in the Marshall Islands and is run by a company that is not American.
Mehrs said Iran cited a court order and the approval of the Ports and Shipping Organization by the Strategic Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army as justification for the seizure of the ship, which was loaded with Iraqi crude oil destined for Turkey adding that the ship was “being transferred to the ports of the Islamic Republic for delivery to the judicial authorities.”
“UK Maritime Trade Operations said on Thursday it had received a report that four to five ‘unauthorized persons,’ reportedly wearing ‘military style black uniforms with black masks,’ had boarded the ship at 03:30 GMT,” the BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67948119" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>, adding, “They added that communications with the vessel had been lost and the authorities were investigating.”
“We condemn this apparent seizure. The Iranian government should immediately release the ship and its crew,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-seizes-oil-tanker-linked-crisis-us-tehran-military-officials-confirm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Thursday. “These provocative and unacceptable actions need to stop. We&#8217;ll continue to work with our allies and partners to deter and confront the full range of Iran&#8217;s concerning and destabilizing behavior in close coordination, of course, with the international community.”
Last April, the United States confiscated the Suez Rajan, which was transporting over 980,000 barrels of contraband Iranian crude oil covertly sent by Iran&#8217;s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, to an entity abroad.
The DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-first-criminal-resolution-involving-illicit-sale-and-transport" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>:
<blockquote>
The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil.
</blockquote>
After the U.S. confiscated the ship, a senior commander of the IRGC navy <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-warns-against-unloading-iranian-oil-seized-tanker-2023-07-20/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Iran would retaliate against any oil company that unloaded Iranian oil from a tanker that had been confiscated.

Flags of the USA and Iran

Iran Seizes Oil Tanker, Says It’s Retaliating Against U.S.: Report

Iranian navy

IRGC

United States

An ironic plot twist caused a planned vote to limit sales on gas-powered cars in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/maine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Maine</a>, forcing a transition to electric vehicles, to come to a screeching halt: a widespread power outage following recent storms that brought heavy rains and high winds.
The Maine Board of Environmental Protection <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/12/21/politics/maine-delays-electric-vehicle-vote/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was scheduled</a> to take a final vote on the proposal — which would have called for electric and plug-in hybrids to total 43% of new vehicle sales by 2027 and over 80% by 2032 — but after Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) declared a state of emergency on Tuesday, the vote was <a href="https://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DEP+PublicMeeting&amp;id=12077607&amp;v=govdel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">postponed</a> until early February.
In addition to the vote being postponed, the effective date of the potential policy has been pushed to 2028 for the first threshold. The board would reevaluate the situation in 2028 to determine the next steps in whether a full transition to electric vehicles would be feasible.
A non-binding vote in October showed that the majority of the board supported the move, but there has been a fair amount of pushback from car dealers and Republican lawmakers. U.S. Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) has also <a href="https://golden.house.gov/media/press-releases/golden-statement-on-maine-board-of-environmental-protection-electric-vehicle-vote" target="_blank" rel="noopener">issued a statement</a> opposing it.
&#8220;The Maine Board of Environmental Protection will vote on proposed rules that would establish a California-style set of mandates forcing Maine auto dealers – and ultimately their customers – to purchase zero emission vehicles,&#8221; Golden said. &#8220;Earlier this year, I submitted testimony in opposition to such a mandate and have taken every opportunity in Congress to vote against policy that amounts to de facto electric vehicle mandates. Forcing Mainers to purchase cars and trucks powered by electricity when our grid is insufficient, charging stations are few and far between, and a storm like yesterday’s would render 80% of cars useless is, to say the least, ill-advised. As I wrote in my testimony, keeping Maine’s environment healthy is a goal we all share, but it’s one that demands thoughtful, place-based policy-making – not the broad-stroke application of a California law that would place an undue burden on hard-working Mainers.&#8221;
Several types of vehicles would be exempt from the policy even if it passes, according to a <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/12/21/politics/maine-delays-electric-vehicle-vote/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the Bangor Daily News. Among them: &#8220;emergency, off-road, rural postal carrier and military vehicles, along with rental vehicles with a final destination outside Maine.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Electric vehicles made up just 6% of new vehicle sales in Maine this year.

Electric Vehicles Charging

Ironic Plot Twist Slams The Brakes On Maine Vote To Ban Gas Cars

Environment

Power

U.S.

The Alaska Democratic Party is exploring amending its platform to call for an end to all oil drilling and fracking in the state, according to documents obtained by The Daily Wire.
In a document where members of the Alaska State Democratic Party&#8217;s Climate Caucus can suggest changes to the party&#8217;s platform, some are calling for a complete end to oil development in one of America&#8217;s premier oil-producing states.
One member of the caucus, Tim Hinterberger, condemned oil development in its entirety. Hinterberger, a professor at the University of Alaska at Anchorage, proposed that the party delete a statement from its current platform that pledges support for &#8220;responsible oil development performed in a manner that protects our fish, game, and wildlife resources.”
&#8220;At this advanced stage of climate disruption, no oil development is responsible,&#8221; Hinterberger wrote.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class=" wp-image-667453 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-300x145.jpg" alt="" width="862" height="417" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-300x145.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-1024x496.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-768x372.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-1536x743.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/Alaska-Dems-12-2048x991.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 862px) 100vw, 862px" /></div>
While some in the Alaska Democratic Party call for a complete end to oil production, the state’s economy remains largely dependent on the industry. Alaska produced <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php">159,611,000 barrels</a> of crude oil in 2022, making it the fifth-highest producer of any American state. The oil industry was also estimated to have been <a href="https://www.akrdc.org/oil-and-gas#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20industry%20accounted,%244.8%20billion%20in%20Alaska%20wages.">responsible</a> for $4.8 billion in wages and 77,600 direct and indirect jobs in 2018. The oil industry even accounts for about one-half of the state’s total economy when taking into account state spending of revenues from the industry.
The statement in support of “responsible oil development” was just one such line that those involved in editing the platform are calling on the party to remove. Must Read Alaska <a href="https://mustreadalaska.com/climate-cult-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-democrat-in-alaska-new-platform-may-oppose-all-oil-and-gas/">reported</a> that those involved in the modification of the platform also urged the party to ax a separate portion of the platform that advocated for oil and gas to be procured under certain circumstances.
The report found that those editing the document also urged the party to remove a portion that read “the monetizing of Alaska’s North Slope natural gas resources in a safe and environmentally responsible manner as soon as it is economically feasible to do so” and also advocated for offshore drilling and fracking under certain circumstances.
The calls for an end to oil development come as the oil industry in Alaska has experienced decline, retreating significantly from 1998 the state accounted for a quarter of the United State’s oil production.
Rick Whitbeck, the Alaska State Director of <a href="https://powerthefuture.com/about-us/">Power the Future</a>, a nonprofit organization that advocates for those who work in the energy space, warned that curtailing the state’s petroleum industry would have devastating consequences and charged that the proposed change to the Democratic Party’s platform is “both irresponsible and radical.”
“Alaska would quickly be bankrupt if our petroleum industry was shuttered.  Nearly 20% of our private-sector workforce is paid – directly or indirectly – by oil and gas development revenues, so you’d see a mass exodus of people as well,” Whitbeck told The Daily Wire. “Philanthropy would dry up, our vibrant arts and culture programs would go unfunded and our infrastructure would crumble without revenues to keep them maintained.”
He went on to contend that the Biden administration currently has a “choke-hold” on new energy developments, which means that the U.S. “needs all of the existing projects operating full-throttle, so we don’t become even more dependent on foreign countries for our domestic oil demand.”
Alaska’s only statewide elected official from the Democratic Party, Representative Mary Peltola (D-AK), declined to comment directly on the potential changes in the state party’s platform, but did assert that losing the oil and gas industry would significantly damage the state’s economy.
“Oil and gas supports thousands of jobs in-state, directly and indirectly, and provides crucial revenue for the state and local communities. Losing these industries without effectively transitioning to other energy sources would be significantly harmful to Alaska,” Rep. Peltola’s office told The Daily Wire before pointing to her support of the Willow Project, which she <a href="https://alaskapublic.org/2023/09/06/peltola-nearing-one-year-in-office-touts-her-support-for-willow-and-other-energy-projects/">called</a> “the largest North Slope oilfield investment in decades.”
Tim Hinterberger did not respond to a request for comment.

Alaska Oil Pipeline

Alaska Democratic Party Considers A Call To End All Oil Production

In 1990, when I was on the floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange, Saddam Hussein sent his 300,000 man army across an invisible surveyor’s line to annex his oil-rich neighbor, Kuwait.
The thought of Saddam Hussein controlling Kuwait’s oil wells was unacceptable. So, President George H. W. Bush cobbled together an international coalition of military power not seen since Vietnam to expel the invaders. Within six months, the decimated Iraqi army was hightailing it out of Kuwait, leaving behind some 35,000 dead soldiers baking in the desert sun.
The coalition victory was heralded as a triumph.
I recount these events in my new book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-Pits-Rough-Tumble-Exchange/dp/B0CKPNCMQW/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1701383926&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Life In The Pits: My Time as a Trader on the Rough and Tumble Exchange Floors</a>.” For me, watching them unfold in real time from the constant news feed scrolling across the digital chyrons that hovered over the chaotic Crude Oil trading rings, the question I wrestled with was, why did we care at all? It certainly couldn’t have been humanitarian concerns alone.
To be sure, Saddam was a terrible man. Yet, during the same time period the world had many other reasons to be outraged, but we were focused on Kuwait. Why?
The answer was as simple then as it is now: The reason the plight of a tiny, wealthy emirate on the Persian Gulf mattered to the point of mobilizing the world to protect it was that Kuwait had oil.
The quest for oil as a catalyst to global upheaval is nothing new.
Why did mighty Japan gamble on going to war with the U.S.? Answer: Oil. For Japan, a nation that imported 90% of its energy, the U.S.-led oil embargo in protest of Dai Nippon’s brutality in China was crippling. Thus the need to strike south into the oil-rich Dutch East Indies to secure their dwindling energy reserves. To accomplish this, the Imperial Navy tried neutralizing its greatest threat to Japanese expansion: the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Four years later, her cities were smoldering ruins, her navy at the bottom of the sea, and U.S. warships were anchored in Tokyo Bay.
Why did Hitler send his Sixth Army surging into southern Russia one year after Pearl Harbor? He wanted to seize the oil fields of the Caucuses. Instead, he watched in a helpless rage as his largest formation in the Wehrmacht was surrounded inside the ruined city of Stalingrad and wiped off the face of the frozen steppe. After Stalingrad, Hitler’s Third Reich was doomed. Once again, the lack of energy independence led to a nation’s ultimate destruction.
And China’s current <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schaeffer-watch-out-for-china-and-what-theyre-doing-in-africa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">economic outreach</a> in Africa is a scheme to grab the energy resources they do not have within their borders.
Indeed, the epicenter of so many modern conflicts, and a source of constant tension and strife to this day, is the global scramble to secure energy.
Which brings us to the continued importance of the Middle East. The reason America remains so involved in a region that a century ago was barely on our radar — and into which we pour tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars each year — is because of the black sludge beneath the Arabian desert and Iranian hills.
We see Putin’s undue influence over powerful NATO members like Germany stemming from Russia being the source of so much natural gas to the E.U., without which they would be plunged into a cold dark winter. And so it goes. Those who have their hands on the crude oil and natural gas spigots exercise disproportionate influence over the world.
With friendly energy producers along both borders, and the oceans as a buffer, the United States is better positioned than any other country on earth to achieve not just energy independence but total self-sufficiency. When that happens, entire priorities regarding foreign affairs will be upended in favor of the interests of the American people over those seeking perpetual war, living under the jackboots of authoritarian regimes.
Regardless of short-term environmental impact, the quest for sustainable energy self-sufficiency should be the goal of any administration or political party that claims to have the interests of the citizenry at heart. This means building new refineries better suited to the new grades of crude coming from the shale revolution. We currently export this sweeter grade and must import a lot of the sour crude.
As I see it, being truly energy independent is more than just importing less than we export. It means not needing to import any at all. With Canada and Mexico sitting atop 174 billion barrels of crude and 88.4 TCF of natural gas, North America need never import another gallon or MMBtu again.
Thanks to the shale boom which began in earnest in the early 2000s, by 2019 the U.S. actually produced more energy than it consumed for the first time since the 1940s. By 2022, even more so, with the U.S. producing 2.5% more than it consumed. This is no fairy tale vision. We simply need the political will to sustain it. 
Shale has provided the keys to unshackle our chains tying us to the Middle East, a region that allegedly prefers we not be there at all. Fine with me. Perhaps we would be better served with our military patrolling the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico rather than the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf.
As with so many terror attacks, Hamas’ brutality in Israel — which should repulse all civilized people without any qualifiers — was financed by money gushing from oil-dependent nations to Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, Iran. In Ukraine, Putin’s military is funded by money flowing through his natural gas pipelines into the E.U.
Speaking before the U.N. in 2018, President Trump warned the Western powers, Germany in particular, of the dangers of dependency on energy courtesy of a potentially hostile foreign power, such as Putin’s Russia. The German diplomats literally laughed at his concerns. They are not laughing now.
The first Gulf War should have been a wake-up call to the U.S. It should have prompted us to embark on a program of complete energy self-sufficiency, so that the plight of ungrateful, duplicitous oil sheiks, maniacal dictators, and fanatical mullahs waging their oil-funded proxy wars against the West should have no influence over our own national security and foreign policy. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. All are flashpoints that continue to steer our nation’s inept foreign policy, while dragging us into one quagmire after another, mostly due to our drive to secure commodities of which we have more than we need literally right under our feet. 
The U.S. has been given the gift of nearly 70 billion barrels in proven oil reserves as well as 368 TCF of natural gas. These are resources in abundance the other great powers, save Russia, do not have.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
If a young clerk on the floor of a hectic commodities exchange three decades ago could have the clarity to see our way out of these horrible wars in the Middle East, what prevents us from moving forward now when we are far better positioned to make my pipe dream a reality? One must ask. Had the U.S. never been dependent on foreign oil, would we have needed to ever be involved in one Mideast disaster after another? How much better would our lives be, and the state of this nation, were we to slip free of the yoke of energy dependence?
In time, technology will make green solutions a reality. But until that happens, we must do what is best for the U.S. As history has shown, at least before oil became a factor, what is best for the U.S. ultimately is best for the world. And certainly best for the average American who should never again salute a flag-draped coffin, courtesy of the latest unnecessary war in a far-off land that, but for oil, we should have little use for in the first place.
* * *
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities trader and author. He has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, National Review, The Federalist, The Hill, The Daily Wire, and Zerohedge among others. His newest book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-Pits-Rough-Tumble-Exchange/dp/B0CKPNCMQW/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1701383926&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Life In The Pits: MyTime As A Trader On The Rough-And-Tumble Exchange Floors</a> is now on sale everywhere. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu