Topic: Energy Independence
“Under the next President, the Department of Energy should end the Biden Administration’s unprovoked war on fossil fuels, restore America’s energy independence, oppose eyesore windmills built at taxpayer expense, and respect the right of Americans to buy and drive cars of their own choosing, rather than trying to force them into electric vehicles and eventually out of the driver’s seat altogether in favor of self-driving robots.”
No, we’re not having a “war on fossil fuels.” If we were, we might actually be addressing what’s going to happen when fossil fuels run out in 205225. They’re a finite resource. I’m not sure how they believe they’re going to “restore” our energy independence, when it soared to a 70-year high in 202225 – under Joe Biden. (Although I’ll admit that leaving out the context is disingenuous here – we achieved energy independence under Trump, because of the shale boom that began in 2005. Biden has presided over even higher levels.)
Forbes underscores the importance of consistent terminology when we talk about energy independence:
“It’s important to understand that the following two statements are each true under a consistent definition of energy independence.
- If the U.S. is not energy independent under Joe Biden, then it was never energy independent under Donald Trump.
- If the U.S. was energy independent under Donald Trump, then energy independence has grown to record levels under Joe Biden.
[Source]26
More breakdown of this statement in the full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“Access to affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is vital to America’s economy, national security, and quality of life. Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance, which began in the first decade of the 2000’s, transformed the United States from a net energy importer (oil and natural gas) to energy independence and then energy dominance. Americans now face energy scarcity, an electric grid that is less than reliable, and artificial shortages of natural gas and oil despite massive reserves within the United States – all of which has led to higher prices that burden both the American people and the economy.”
This is a lot to process, so I walk through this claim one statement at a time in the full analysis below. In short, McNamee’s opening premise is not only flawed, but off-base as well.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“The next Administration should make U.S. energy dominance a key component of its foreign policy while ensuring that domestic and international goals are aligned. American energy dominance will allow the United States to secure energy for its citizens, markets for its energy exports, and access to new energy natural resources and will provide tools for U.S. policymakers to assist our allies and deter our adversaries.”
As detailed above, killing renewable energy in the U.S., when other countries are forging forward with it, will not result in “American energy dominance.” It will result in the exact opposite. We’ll be left behind, while other countries take over that market share. In the near future, when fossil fuels run out, we’ll be forced to buy renewable energy technologies from countries that didn’t do this (like China) because we didn’t spend the last 25 years investing in American innovation. This proposal is 100% ludicrous, considering McNamee’s previous proposals. The two notions are diametrically opposed.
McNamee goes on to detail similarly dissonant goals and policies. Meaning, it will be literally impossible to achieve his stated goals, using his proposed policies. As I pointed out on the Material Contributors page, McNamee has a history of nonsensical positions:
McNamee drew fire from clean energy advocates and lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in late 2018 when a video surfaced of his comments at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin. At the free-market group’s event, McNamee emphasized the need for public awareness that “fossil fuels are not something dirty, something we need to get away from,” but instead are the “key to our prosperity” and a “clean environment.” He said “renewables, when they come on and off, it screws up the whole physics of the grid.” He also decried the “tyranny” of environmental groups that back renewable power (E&E News PM, Nov. 20, 2018)
Read that again, but slower. “Fossil fuels are the key to a clean environment.” This statement is bonkers.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Joe Biden’s DOI, as is well documented, abandoned all pretense of complying with federal law regarding federally owned oil and gas resources. Not since the Administration of President Harry S. Truman – prior to creation of the OCS oil and gas program—have fewer federal leases been issued.”
Is it true that Biden has allowed the fewest new federal drilling leases since Truman? Sort of. It’s misleading for Pendley to say that. Sales, yes. Permits, no. Federal data show the Biden administration approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years. [Source]
Evidence shows that Biden has simply been honoring commitments Trump made prior to Biden’s taking office:
“Recent claims suggesting that the Biden administration has granted 50 percent more oil and gas drilling permits on federal land compared to the Trump administration have been circulating in the media – and while that data is accurate, it’s a lot more complex. A closer look at the 2023 data reveals that many of the permits approved by the Biden administration were granted on land that was leased during the Trump administration. The Biden administration, on the other hand, has held the absolute minimum lease sales possible.” [Source]
That, and Congress tied his hands:
“Administration officials said they couldn’t go further because of provisions Congress approved last year that require offshore oil leasing in order for Interior to do offshore wind leasing. A maximum of three sales — one each planned for 2025, 2027 and 2029 — are the fewest the Interior Department said it could do under the law and keep expanding its offshore wind program as it intended through 2030.” [Source]
Worth noting also is that U.S. Energy Independence set a new record under Biden.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior here.
“Biden is “aligning the management of…public lands and waters…to support robust climate action,” as envisioned in Executive Orders 14008 and 13990. One of his first actions was to ban federal coal, oil, and natural gas leasing on federal lands and waters to fulfill his campaign promise of “no federal oil,” followed by actions from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to rescind the Trump Administration’s Energy Dominance Agenda.”
(Ellipses are his, not mine.) Again, energy independence is at record levels under Biden.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior here.
“The next Administration should use Treasury’s tools and authority to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. It should reverse support for international public- (and private-) based efforts promoting Environmental, Social, and Governance and Principles for Responsible Investment, both of which have badly damaged U.S. energy security.”
This is a flat-out lie. The U.S. is producing more oil and gas than ever before, and renewables haven’t threatened our energy security.
“Our study shows that an increased reliance on renewable sources and nuclear energy reduced some countries’ dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy, ultimately improving energy security.”
It’s actually overreliance on fossil fuels that threatens energy security. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. What’s the plan for when they no longer exist?
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury here.