It was OK for Trump and not OK for Biden because Trump had no problem saying that he does not care about environment while Biden claims that he supports green energy. This makes Trump to be an hones man an Biden to be a hypocrite. When a bad guys does bad thing - he is bad but honest; when a good guy does bad things - he is bad and dishonest.
Biden releases 50 million barrels of oil
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
Dream on.
A CBS News poll released last week showed two-thirds of Americans think the economy is bad. And among those who think the economy is bad, 74% say gas prices are one of the top reasons.
Rising prices take toll on Americans' wallets — and Biden's numbers — CBS News Poll
The president is also facing criticism on his handling of immigration.
www.cbsnews.com
Other polls have found the same thing.
Back in October, I posted a thread about the energy crisis and what happens when green fairy tales collide with reality: https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the...reen-fairy-tales-collide-with-reality.762812/
Biden is learning this lesson the hard way. Having boasted about being the climate change warrior who's going to eliminate fossil fuels, he's belatedly discovering that Americans -- and people everywhere -- actually want affordable gas and oil.
Last edited:
We know that even if Trump was President the oil prices would not have been any different. Once again it is OPEC who have a stranglehold on the price of oil. The fact is that in June of 2008 it hit a record of over US$128 a barrel under the Bush watch.Dream on.
A CBS News poll released last week showed two-thirds of Americans think the economy is bad. And among those who think the economy is bad, 74% say gas prices are one of the top reasons.
Rising prices take toll on Americans' wallets — and Biden's numbers — CBS News Poll
The president is also facing criticism on his handling of immigration.
Other polls have found the same thing.
Back in October, I posted a thread about the energy crisis and what happens when green fairy tales collide with reality: https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the...reen-fairy-tales-collide-with-reality.762812/
Biden is learning this lesson the hard way. Having boasted about being the climate change warrior who's going to eliminate fossil fuels, he's belatedly discovering that Americans -- and people everywhere -- actually want affordable gas and oil.
Were You guys blaming the Republicans then? Obviously at that time you all claimed that it was OPEC price fixing, and that there was nothing that the Governments could do, be it Bush or Harper!! This US$70 per barrel pales in comparison.
The fact is that the majority of Americans want Climate Change to be addressed. Only less than 40% of the Republicans think that it is not a serious concern, while close to 70% of Americans want it to be addressed. Anyway it is NOT just gas prices that are affecting the inflation and Economy. Everything from Food to Transport and badly affected crops due to adverse Climate Change is responsible for it. Well the first 10 months of Biden's presidency saw close to 5.6 million new jobs being created. That is the highest of any President. We know Trump would have boasted about it if it occurred under his watch!!
Trump has come up with over 26,000 lies that have been fully documented. Honesty and Trump do not go in the same sentence!!
Once again for now we are dependant on this Fossil fuels to power our cars etc. That is why they have a window of a couple of decades to eliminate this emitter of the major source of greenhouse gases. It cannot happen overnight and no one wants it to, be it Biden or the rest of the World. However, the manner in which this price gouging occurred needed the rest of the world to take some action, and that is why several other nations responded by delving into their oil reserves. Pulling the USA out of the Paris Accord was a dumb move by Trump and hence close to 70% of Americans want action on Climate Change. The alt right wingers and their cult leader called Trump make up the 30% or so!!
Biden Targets Another US Pipeline For Shutdown After 'Begging' Saudis For More Oil
Nov 08, 2021
Despite approval ratings in the toilet, President Biden and his administration are reportedly exploring the closure of yet another pipeline in a bid to shift the US away from fossil fuels and appease environmental activists.
The move - shutting down the Line 5 pipeline which links Superior, WI to Sarnia, Ontario, would cost tens of thousands of US jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and further exacerbate energy shortages and price increases hitting lower-income Americans the hardest, according to a Thursday letter from 13 House Republicans led by Rep. Bob Latta.
According to the letter, the closure would affect workers across "Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the region," and would place the environment at greater risk "due to additional trucks operating on roadways carrying hazardous materials."
Line 5 is part of a network of oil pipes which move approximately 540,000 barrels per day from western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan.
"Furthermore, as we enter the winter months and temperatures drop across the Midwest, the termination of Line 5 will undoubtedly further exacerbate shortages and price increases in home heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when Americans are already facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing gas prices."
It also comes after a weekend which started out with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm scoffing at the notion of increasing domestic oil production...
...and ended on Sunday with her warning that Americans should expect to pay higher costs to heat their homes this winter - telling CNN's "State of the Union":
"This is going to happen. It will be -- it will be more expensive this year than last year," adding "We are in a slightly beneficial position, well certainly relative to Europe, because their choke hold of natural gas is very significant. ... But we have the same problem in fuels that the supply chains have, which is that the oil and gas companies are not flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires."
According to Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Biden's energy policies and potentially shutting down Line 5, is "just one more example of being divorced from reality."
"They're planning to power an industrial nation like the United States on solar panels and wind turbines," Hayes told Fox News.
"I hope it doesn't end like this, but where I see it going is unfortunately the same thing that happened in February in Texas: People freezing in their homes," he continued. "Most of the time when it's extremely cold or there's a real bad polar vortex situation, typically it's pretty cloudy and there's not a lot of wind."
Environmental groups and Native Amerian tribes, meanwhile, claim that a potential oil spill from the 70-year-old pipeline could devastate the Great Lakes and Michigan's coastal economies.
"Given the strength and oscillation of the currents, over 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Huron shoreline would face serious contamination" in the event of a spill, wrote a group of 12 tribal nations in a Nov. 4 letter to Biden. "In contrast to Canada’s vocal support of [pipeline owner] Enbridge, and despite what we understand to be the Governor’s requests for help, your Administration has thus far been silent regarding Line 5."
As Politico notes:
All this means that Biden, who promised at the COP26 climate talks that the United States would be “hopefully leading by the power of our example,” is facing the sort of cold, hard political decision that such grand climate ambitions can force on a country that is the world's top oil and gas producer, said Kevin Book, managing director at energy consulting firm ClearView Energy: Either keep the pipeline in place and disappoint progressives, or revoke its permit and hand Republicans fresh ammunition just after they shellacked Democrats in Virginia and other state elections.
"When fuel prices are high, it may not matter what project gets stopped so much as the White House is seen stopping it," said Bock. "Politically speaking, anything that could get in the way of the propane supply ahead of winter could play badly in Midwestern swing states."
Do they even care at this point?
www.zerohedge.com
Nov 08, 2021
Despite approval ratings in the toilet, President Biden and his administration are reportedly exploring the closure of yet another pipeline in a bid to shift the US away from fossil fuels and appease environmental activists.
The move - shutting down the Line 5 pipeline which links Superior, WI to Sarnia, Ontario, would cost tens of thousands of US jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and further exacerbate energy shortages and price increases hitting lower-income Americans the hardest, according to a Thursday letter from 13 House Republicans led by Rep. Bob Latta.
According to the letter, the closure would affect workers across "Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the region," and would place the environment at greater risk "due to additional trucks operating on roadways carrying hazardous materials."
Line 5 is part of a network of oil pipes which move approximately 540,000 barrels per day from western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan.
"Furthermore, as we enter the winter months and temperatures drop across the Midwest, the termination of Line 5 will undoubtedly further exacerbate shortages and price increases in home heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when Americans are already facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing gas prices."
It also comes after a weekend which started out with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm scoffing at the notion of increasing domestic oil production...
...and ended on Sunday with her warning that Americans should expect to pay higher costs to heat their homes this winter - telling CNN's "State of the Union":
"This is going to happen. It will be -- it will be more expensive this year than last year," adding "We are in a slightly beneficial position, well certainly relative to Europe, because their choke hold of natural gas is very significant. ... But we have the same problem in fuels that the supply chains have, which is that the oil and gas companies are not flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires."
According to Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Biden's energy policies and potentially shutting down Line 5, is "just one more example of being divorced from reality."
"They're planning to power an industrial nation like the United States on solar panels and wind turbines," Hayes told Fox News.
"I hope it doesn't end like this, but where I see it going is unfortunately the same thing that happened in February in Texas: People freezing in their homes," he continued. "Most of the time when it's extremely cold or there's a real bad polar vortex situation, typically it's pretty cloudy and there's not a lot of wind."
Environmental groups and Native Amerian tribes, meanwhile, claim that a potential oil spill from the 70-year-old pipeline could devastate the Great Lakes and Michigan's coastal economies.
"Given the strength and oscillation of the currents, over 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Huron shoreline would face serious contamination" in the event of a spill, wrote a group of 12 tribal nations in a Nov. 4 letter to Biden. "In contrast to Canada’s vocal support of [pipeline owner] Enbridge, and despite what we understand to be the Governor’s requests for help, your Administration has thus far been silent regarding Line 5."
As Politico notes:
All this means that Biden, who promised at the COP26 climate talks that the United States would be “hopefully leading by the power of our example,” is facing the sort of cold, hard political decision that such grand climate ambitions can force on a country that is the world's top oil and gas producer, said Kevin Book, managing director at energy consulting firm ClearView Energy: Either keep the pipeline in place and disappoint progressives, or revoke its permit and hand Republicans fresh ammunition just after they shellacked Democrats in Virginia and other state elections.
"When fuel prices are high, it may not matter what project gets stopped so much as the White House is seen stopping it," said Bock. "Politically speaking, anything that could get in the way of the propane supply ahead of winter could play badly in Midwestern swing states."
Do they even care at this point?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
united states is by far the largest producer of oil in the world but it still uses 2 million more barrels every day than it produces.this is not energy independent but bidens plan is.
Biden Targets Another US Pipeline For Shutdown After 'Begging' Saudis For More Oil
Nov 08, 2021
Despite approval ratings in the toilet, President Biden and his administration are reportedly exploring the closure of yet another pipeline in a bid to shift the US away from fossil fuels and appease environmental activists.
The move - shutting down the Line 5 pipeline which links Superior, WI to Sarnia, Ontario, would cost tens of thousands of US jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and further exacerbate energy shortages and price increases hitting lower-income Americans the hardest, according to a Thursday letter from 13 House Republicans led by Rep. Bob Latta.
According to the letter, the closure would affect workers across "Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the region," and would place the environment at greater risk "due to additional trucks operating on roadways carrying hazardous materials."
Line 5 is part of a network of oil pipes which move approximately 540,000 barrels per day from western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan.
"Furthermore, as we enter the winter months and temperatures drop across the Midwest, the termination of Line 5 will undoubtedly further exacerbate shortages and price increases in home heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when Americans are already facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing gas prices."
It also comes after a weekend which started out with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm scoffing at the notion of increasing domestic oil production...
...and ended on Sunday with her warning that Americans should expect to pay higher costs to heat their homes this winter - telling CNN's "State of the Union":
"This is going to happen. It will be -- it will be more expensive this year than last year," adding "We are in a slightly beneficial position, well certainly relative to Europe, because their choke hold of natural gas is very significant. ... But we have the same problem in fuels that the supply chains have, which is that the oil and gas companies are not flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires."
According to Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Biden's energy policies and potentially shutting down Line 5, is "just one more example of being divorced from reality."
"They're planning to power an industrial nation like the United States on solar panels and wind turbines," Hayes told Fox News.
"I hope it doesn't end like this, but where I see it going is unfortunately the same thing that happened in February in Texas: People freezing in their homes," he continued. "Most of the time when it's extremely cold or there's a real bad polar vortex situation, typically it's pretty cloudy and there's not a lot of wind."
Environmental groups and Native Amerian tribes, meanwhile, claim that a potential oil spill from the 70-year-old pipeline could devastate the Great Lakes and Michigan's coastal economies.
"Given the strength and oscillation of the currents, over 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Huron shoreline would face serious contamination" in the event of a spill, wrote a group of 12 tribal nations in a Nov. 4 letter to Biden. "In contrast to Canada’s vocal support of [pipeline owner] Enbridge, and despite what we understand to be the Governor’s requests for help, your Administration has thus far been silent regarding Line 5."
As Politico notes:
All this means that Biden, who promised at the COP26 climate talks that the United States would be “hopefully leading by the power of our example,” is facing the sort of cold, hard political decision that such grand climate ambitions can force on a country that is the world's top oil and gas producer, said Kevin Book, managing director at energy consulting firm ClearView Energy: Either keep the pipeline in place and disappoint progressives, or revoke its permit and hand Republicans fresh ammunition just after they shellacked Democrats in Virginia and other state elections.
"When fuel prices are high, it may not matter what project gets stopped so much as the White House is seen stopping it," said Bock. "Politically speaking, anything that could get in the way of the propane supply ahead of winter could play badly in Midwestern swing states."
Do they even care at this point?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
Fake News:
Ignore the buzz, here’s why Enbridge Line 5 won’t likely close anytime soon | Great Lakes Now
By Kelly House, Bridge Michigan and Lester Graham, Michigan Radio The Great Lakes News Collaborative includes Bridge Michigan; Circle of Blue; Great Lakes Now at Detroit Public Television; and Michigan Radio, Michigan’s NPR News Leader; who work together to bring audiences news and information...
www.greatlakesnow.org
Nonsense.
Yes, you can find polls that will show people supporting "action" on climate change. But if the pollster asks whether respondents are willing to pay for measures to support climate change, that support collapses.
Furthermore, the ones who say they're willing to pay aren't willing to pay much. If pollsters go so far as to ask people about significant costs, very few respondents are still on board.
And it gets worse.
People are rarely given realistic estimates of the costs involved. While some eco-types talk about making "sacrifices" similar to the rationing in the Second World War, political leaders - like Biden and Trudeau - never say anything like that.
Quite the opposite. They prefer fairy-tale descriptions of a rosy future, using phrases like "Build Back Better."
The reality is that meeting ambitious targets for net zero -- if they could ever be met (which is doubtful given existing technology) -- would require enormous hardship.
Biden couldn't take the heat when gas prices went up. Indeed, it sure doesn't look like a "majority of Americans" support higher gas prices. You think Biden and the Democrats would stick with the plan when the cost impact gets much, much worse?
The answer is no. And that answer applies to Republicans, Democrats and independents.
You just cannot accept the facts. We all know that when the effects of Climate Change impact you personally then it is too late. That issue is currently occurring in Washington State and British Columbia. There the damages are far, far worse than what it takes to pay for the Climate Change taxes in cents per litre etc. That is a fact. Ask them now if they believe in Climate Change!!
Trump and the Republican Climate Change Deniers irresponsible pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord has only exacerbated this crisis, as we saw that Brazilian President approving the deforestation of the Amazon at record levels. The big Polluting Nations have continued to grow the levels of carbon emissions to their highest peak. Those goals set at the recent Climate Conference are realistic, or and the alternative is that we will be paying a much heavier and heavier price on damages as a result of flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes. Cannot understand how the Climate Change Deniers just cannot comprehend this very simple fact!!
Here is a poll from April of this year that supports exactly what I posted: https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20210525-CEI-Climate-Poll-PP.pdf
The poll of 1,200 randomly selected registered voters in the U.S. found 67% of respondents said they were concerned about climate change.
However, when they were asked how much they would be willing to pay to reduce the impact of climate change, 61% said $30 or less per month. A total of 74% of respondents went no higher than $50 per month.
Furthermore, 35% of respondents weren't willing to pay anything and 50% of respondents only went as high as $10 a month.
Taking "action" to get to net zero would cost the average voter a hell of a lot more than $10 per month. In fact, it would cost a hell of a lot more than $50 per month.
The facts are what I said they are.
People might say they support action on climate change but that support collapses when you start talking about the real-world impact on their wallets. That's clear in the polling and even more clear when the rising costs become a reality, as is currently witnessed in the U.S.
By the way, there's no point blaming Fox News, Republicans or the alt-right. Polling in Canada shows Canadians also aren't willing to pay the real costs for "action" on climate change.
This poll from 2019 that was reported by the CBC found half of Canadians would not be willing to pay more than be $9 per month: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514
A Nanos poll from this past September found a similar reluctance to pay for climate action, although it doesn't have specific dollar amounts:
Slim majority of Canadians willing to pay more to help achieve emissions-reduction targets: Nanos poll
A slim majority of Canadians indicate some willingness to pay more to help achieve Canada’s emission-reduction targets, according to new Nanos polling research.
www.ctvnews.ca
This is not about "paying" for it from the wallet. When 74% of Americans are willing to pay $600 a year, then at least they believe in Climate Change being a very serious issue. Something that the deniers will of course never accept.Here is a poll from April of this year that supports exactly what I posted: https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20210525-CEI-Climate-Poll-PP.pdf
The poll of 1,200 randomly selected registered voters in the U.S. found 67% of respondents said they were concerned about climate change.
However, when they were asked how much they would be willing to pay to reduce the impact of climate change, 61% said $30 or less per month. A total of 74% of respondents went no higher than $50 per month.
Furthermore, 35% of respondents weren't willing to pay anything and 50% of respondents only went as high as $10 a month.
Taking "action" to get to net zero would cost the average voter a hell of a lot more than $10 per month. In fact, it would cost a hell of a lot more than $50 per month.
The facts are what I said they are.
People might say they support action on climate change but that support collapses when you start talking about the real-world impact on their wallets. That's clear in the polling and even more clear when the rising costs become a reality, as is currently witnessed in the U.S.
By the way, there's no point blaming Fox News, Republicans or the alt-right. Polling in Canada shows Canadians also aren't willing to pay the real costs for "action" on climate change.
This poll from 2019 that was reported by the CBC found half of Canadians would not be willing to pay more than be $9 per month: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514
A Nanos poll from this past September found a similar reluctance to pay for climate action, although it doesn't have specific dollar amounts:
Slim majority of Canadians willing to pay more to help achieve emissions-reduction targets: Nanos poll
A slim majority of Canadians indicate some willingness to pay more to help achieve Canada’s emission-reduction targets, according to new Nanos polling research.www.ctvnews.ca
As for Canada and after the recent Climate Change Conference in Scotland this was the opinion of the Canadians in a much more recent poll:
Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24
Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com
Yes they want the subsidies to the oil and natural gas companies to be curtailed. Significantly also is the fact that they want a ban on the export of coal by 2030.
Also, you should bear in mind that us Canadians are getting a Credit in our tax returns to offset the Carbon Tax at the pumps.
Not a word in the polling you cited about the exorbitant costs Canadians would have to pay to attempt to get a tiny way towards net zero (because net zero is actually a fantasy).
Put simply, that polling research is meaningless.
Over 60% weren't willing to pay more than $400 a year - a mere fraction of the actual cost they would face.
Only 5% were willing to pay anything remotely close to the actual cost. In fact, when the true cost is known, we may very well discover only 1% were willing to pay the actual cost.
A little less than your so-called "majority."
This is the problem with an issue that's all virtue signalling with no credible cost-benefit analysis. Polling will show people favour hitting the oil and gas companies with higher taxes, with most of those respondents not realizing the higher taxes will ultimately be added to the price at the pumps.
It's as silly as thinking you can pay for everything politicians are promising simply by taxing the rich and/or finding efficiencies in government. In reality, these measures would barely begin to cover the estimated costs.
The price of gas in the U.S. today is nothing compared with what it will be if America seriously tries to get to net zero. Yet Biden is already backpedalling and is now pushing for increased oil production.
Last edited:
According to what you posted above, you stated that:
Once again this phase out of the fossil fuels can only be achieved over a couple of decades in a gradual manner, and not overnight to fix the oil prices as OPEC members conspired to do so. Nothing about Biden back pedalling as we need the gas / oil for our transport, heating etc. What has to be accelerated is the investment and production of electric cars and other technology and as it continues to evolve over time, then we can say goodbye to the fossil fuels!!
If you do the Math then that equates to $600 per year. The gas and oil companies are getting a lot of Government grants. That is why their top executives are getting huge bonuses, even during the Pandemic while a vast number of Americans were on Emergency Benefits. But The Republicans were increasing funding these gas and oil companies even during the Pandemic. Did you know that the richest 5% of Americans incomes have skyrocketed over the years whereas those at the bottom of the barrel have had a raise of a minuscule amount:
Yes, it is time for these elitists to pay their fair share of taxes, while those at the bottom can barely put any for on the table. If there is a slight raise of the minimum wages by a few cents an hour, no wonder that the usual few of the right wingers start going ballistic about how this affects the businesses!!
Once again this phase out of the fossil fuels can only be achieved over a couple of decades in a gradual manner, and not overnight to fix the oil prices as OPEC members conspired to do so. Nothing about Biden back pedalling as we need the gas / oil for our transport, heating etc. What has to be accelerated is the investment and production of electric cars and other technology and as it continues to evolve over time, then we can say goodbye to the fossil fuels!!
The costs of alternative greener energy have come down over time. Net zero is not a fantasy except of course in the Climate Change Deniers Fairy tale Book. More and more of the population of Canadians and other Nations are experiencing the effects of the Climate Change. When they are losing their homes, farms, factories etc, then this is no longer a laughing matter!!
