Topic: Fossil Fuels
“The Biden Administration’s extreme climate policies have worsened global food insecurity and hunger. Its anti–fossil fuel agenda has led to a sharp spike in global energy prices. Inflation has hit the poor the hardest as they expend a higher proportion of income on food purchases. Farmers in poor countries can no longer afford to buy expensive natural gas–based fertilizers that are key to achieving high yields of food production. Under advice from climate radicals, the government of Sri Lanka even banned chemical fertilizers entirely without having any replacements in place. The result has been hunger and violent political instability.”
Primorac exaggerates so aggressively that if I were going to debunk every instance, this essay would be prohibitively long. Suffice it to say, almost none of this is true. There’s little direct evidence that the Biden Administration’s climate policies are responsible for worsening global food insecurity. Global food insecurity is driven by a complex set of factors, including climate change, conflict, supply chain disruptions (such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), and, most recently, the Russia-Ukraine war (which severely disrupted grain and fertilizer supplies).
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“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.
“Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources.”
This is a lot to digest. In context, he’s arguing here for the Department of Energy cutting all federal funding into research and development for renewable energy. He specifically mentions cutting funding for the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or consolidating it into another entity. SPR is the world’s largest supply of of emergency crude oil, designed to reduce the impact of disruptions in oil supplies. It is unclear why he’s making this recommendation.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OCED (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations). OCED was created to fund large-scale projects that demonstrate the viability of emerging clean energy technologies, helping them reach commercial scale (deploying these technologies into the market.)
McNamee wants to eliminate the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, which provides subsidies to local governments and communities for clean energy.
McNamee wants to eliminate ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which funds high-risk, high-reward energy projects aimed at developing innovative technologies that could transform the energy sector.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OGD (Office of Grid Deployment), which focuses on modernizing and improving the electrical grid, including enhancing its resilience and reliability. This is DIRECTLY at odds with his stated goal of improving the resilience and reliability of the electrical grid.
McNamee wants to eliminate the DOE loan program, which provides loans and loan guarantees to innovative energy projects, often aimed at clean energy technologies like solar, wind, and advanced batteries.
As for the suggested focus for the remaining offices that he’s not killing, he’s saying that the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management) should focus on fundamental research in fossil energy, rather than funding carbon capture projects. He’s saying that the NE (Office of Nuclear Energy) should focus on basic nuclear research rather than advancing commercial nuclear technologies. He’s saying that the OE (Office of Electricity) should prioritize cybersecurity and physical security of the grid, instead of grid modernization efforts. Finally, he’s saying that the EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) should focus on scientific advancements rather than deploying renewable energy technologies commercially.
Whew! Now that we’ve unraveled the WHAT, you can find the WHY in the linked analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Though CESER is properly focused on the threat to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar, it needs to focus on the entire energy system, including the interdependence between natural gas and electric generation and cybersecurity.”
This is within the context of making reforms to cybersecurity efforts. “Inverter-based resources” means energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines that generate direct current (DC) electricity, but must be converted to alternating current (AC) energy to be compatible with the existing electrical grid. Inverter-based systems, while essential for the integration of renewables, introduce certain challenges because they don’t inherently provide the same type of synchronous stability (like frequency regulation) that traditional generators do.
Are renewables a “threat to the grid”? It’s true that improperly managed, they don’t provide inertia in the same way and are therefore less stable in the absence of proper controllers. Traditional power plants have large, rotating turbines that provide inertia, which helps stabilize the grid by automatically maintaining the frequency (usually 60Hz in the U.S.). Inverters can offer synthetic inertia and other forms of frequency support, but they require advanced control systems and careful grid integration. So it’s possible and manageable, a fact that McNamee does not admit.
Renewable energy isn’t inherently a threat, but the grid does need to be modernized to accommodate a higher share of renewables. This includes better energy storage solutions (like batteries), improved grid infrastructure, and demand response systems that can adjust electricity use based on availability. Increasing renewable energy sources diversifies the energy mix, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing energy security.
While renewable resources do pose technical challenges (due to their intermittency and the way they interact with the grid), framing them as a “threat” overlooks the potential for grid modernization, technological advances, and the broader benefits of transitioning to clean energy. It’s baseless fearmongering on McNamee’s part.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed to aid in the “transition” away from politically disfavored industries and technologies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas operations very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables.”
I go into painstaking detail in Section 3.3 with regard to how renewables actually work, so I won’t repeat myself here.
Is the Biden administration making coal, oil, and natural gas operations expensive and inaccessible? No. In fact, U.S. oil production is at an all-time high under Joe Biden. It is true, however, that having to comply with environmental regulations does cost fossil fuel industries money. Hence the Heritage Foundation’s push for deregulation. They’re being pushed by the oil industry. In fact, Trump attempted to bribe 20 heads of the fossil fuel industry with deregulation and tax favors in exchange for a billion dollars for himself.
“The totality of…Trump, the fossil-fuel industry and a [conservative thinktank] Heritage Foundation blueprint advocate will put a dagger through efforts to avoid catastrophic warming,” said Joe Romm, a senior research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
“Trump promises to undo every constraint on global warming. Trump has pushed more lies and disinformation about climate change than anyone ever has.”
More:
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“President Bill Clinton resumed Carter’s “War on the West,” epitomized by his DOI’s deploying of wolves into the states bordering Yellowstone National Park; the decreed death of a world-class mine in Montana; and the designation of a vast national monument in Utah over the objections of Utah leaders—but with the support of the Hollywood elite.”
For context, the monument he’s referring to is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, designated in 1996. This was a controversial move at the time, because Clinton did it under the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to unilaterally protect significant public lands by declaring them National Monuments.
Many local Utah leaders and residents opposed the designation because they felt it restricted economic activities like mining and ranching. The area was rich in coal reserves, and local politicians saw the monument designation as a federal overreach. On the other hand, environmental groups and many in the national spotlight, including celebrities and political elites, supported the move, praising it as a necessary step to preserve the natural beauty and ecological significance of the area.
The monument was later reduced in size by 900,000 acres (about half) by President Donald Trump in 2017 along with the Bears’ Ears monument, citing similar concerns about local economic impacts and federal overreach. However, in 2021, President Joe Biden restored the monument to its original size, once again sparking debate about the balance between conservation and local economic interests.
“During his speech Monday, Trump said the national monument designations also “prevent Native Americans from having their rightful voice over the sacred land where they practice their most important ancestral and religious traditions.”
Many tribal leaders and activists are likely to deeply object to this assessment. For months, they have passionately campaigned to preserve the national monument designations — and now, upon hearing Trump’s proclamations, they are promising to sue.
It’s no surprise that Trump lied about how the people felt about this decision.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior 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.
“Conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted under the 2023–2028 lease program, with the possibility to move forward under a previously studied but unselected plan alternative.”
Offshore drilling has devastating impacts on oceans and coastal communities. It’s also expensive. It carries the risk of oil spills, which destroy marine ecosystems. It pollutes the air and water and exacerbates climate change. The seismic blasting11 harms dolphins, whales, and other marine mammals. It’s horrible for the environment.
Plus, chronic irresponsibility is a HUGE problem:
“Once an operator shuts down a well—usually because it is no longer profitable—the company is required to remove its equipment and help restore the area that was damaged by its operations. But in reality, this doesn’t always happen. Many abandoned wells (idle wells with a known owner) and orphaned wells (wells with no responsible owner to be found) remain uncapped and leak oil, methane, and other pollutants into our oceans and atmosphere every day. Researchers estimate that properly plugging the 28,232 permanently abandoned wells in our federal waters, along with the ones currently in use, would cost around $47 billion. That doesn’t even take into account orphaned and abandoned wells in state waters.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior here.