View this email in your browser
MORNING ENERGY NEWS  |  03/06/2020
Subscribe Now

Low prices, record production, increasing exports. Remind me, again, why we need this 'low-energy' energy bill?


Tampa Bay Times (3/4/20) reports: "Florida’s two U.S. senators are pushing their colleagues this week to ban companies from drilling for oil in the east Gulf of Mexico for another decade, a moratorium that would extend well beyond President Donald Trump’s time in office. Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott are hoping to tack the proposal onto a sweeping energy bill that is quickly moving through the U.S. Senate and could be voted on this week. The existing moratorium is set to expire in June 2022 and the amendment offered by the two Republicans would extend that by 10 years. The amendment, if it passes, would tie the hands of the Trump administration, which has waffled back and forth on whether to open Florida’s west coast to drilling."

"History shows that the most effective way to protect the environment is via a system of private property rights and free markets. Private property owners are better stewards of the environment than are government bureaucrats because private property owners have greater incentives to maintain the value of their property."

 

– Dr. Ron Paul,
The Ron Paul Institute

Driving the cost of energy up so high the average family has to choose between prescriptions, food and the lights would be RepublicEn(ding).


CFACT (3/2/20) blog: "I have been shining a light this week on the fake conservative group republicEn’s participation at the CPAC annual conference this week. The central agenda of republicEn and its fake conservative allies is to impose on Americans the largest tax hike in the nation’s history. Taking money from leftist interests, republicEn hopes that by deceitfully calling themselves conservatives, they can scam people into believing that climate activism and carbon dioxide taxes are conservative political principles. republicEn Executive Director Bob Inglis is a former member of Congress who was so liberal that – even with all the advantages of the incumbency – he lost a 2010 primary to conservative challenger Trey Gowdy. Inglis claims that his massive global warming tax really isn’t a tax. He claims that if Republicans support a carbon dioxide tax, they can insist that all collected taxes are returned to taxpayers in the form of tax rebates or cutting other tax cuts...The sole purpose of a carbon dioxide tax is to dramatically reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. To do this, a carbon dioxide tax must make conventional energy so expensive that wind and solar power become a bargain by comparison. Yet wind and solar power are currently more than twice as expensive as conventional energy. So, the net result of a carbon dioxide tax will be to send electricity and gasoline prices through the roof."

Those who walk uprightly enter into peace.


National Review (3/4/20) column: "The death of physicist Freeman Dyson on February 28 has been noted by many publications, all of which highlighted his many contributions to science. Dyson, 96, was, without doubt, a genius...Dyson was a skeptic on the issue of catastrophic climate change, a fact that was prominently noted in the obituaries published in the Washington Post and the New York Times...Dyson could afford to be a skeptic. Few academics dare to break from the orthodoxy on climate change because the pressure to hew to the majority view is so intense. For proof of that, look no further than the experiences of Judith Curry at Georgia Tech or of Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, both of whom were effectively blacklisted for questioning that orthodoxy...The essence of Dyson’s argument wasn’t about climate change or computer models. Instead, it was about values...Rather than demonize energy and energy producers, Dyson focused on equity, human development, and the need for more energy so that more poverty-stricken people can live better lives. 'The humanist ethic begins with the belief that humans are an essential part of nature,' he wrote. 'Humans have the right and the duty to reconstruct nature so that humans and biosphere can both survive and prosper. For humanists, the highest value is harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.'"

Wait, but Bernie told us it was an eggsistential threat. You know what that means, Grist?


Grist (3/3/20) blog: "With the Doomsday Clock ticking closer to midnight, 'existential”'is becoming the word of our times, encompassing a wide variety of apocalyptic anxieties. Especially those surrounding climate change. During last week’s Democratic debate in South Carolina, climate change barely got a hearing, but Bernie Sanders did manage to call it an 'existential threat.' It’s been a near-constant when the subject of our overheating planet pops up. Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and the now-departed Pete Buttigieg have also dangled the phrase in front of the Democratic electorate, pledging that their plans will help avert catastrophe. It’s not only presidential hopefuls invoking such alarming terms — so are mass media outlets, Nancy Pelosi, and the United Nations secretary-general, Antonio Guterres. So why is everybody suddenly sounding like chain-smoking French philosophers from the last century? What exactly is an existential threat, anyway? And should climate change be considered one So is climate change an existential threat? According to the scientific definition, likely not. As far as scientists can predict, a warming planet won’t cause changes so severe that they threaten the survival of the entire human species. And there is evidence that some of our most pessimistic projections may be exaggerated. That’s the sort-of good news." 

Follow @ForbesCEO. He knows a thing or two about a thing or two.

At least John Kerry was for it before he was against it.


Axios (3/4/20) reports: "A top business trade association official and the CEO of a major pipeline company said Tuesday they want the federal government to do more on climate change — but they’re not actually backing any such plans. Driving the news: Marty Durbin, a top official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Williams Company CEO Alan Armstrong, speaking at a Bipartisan Policy Center event Tuesday, both said they think the government should create an economy-wide policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But, but, but: They don’t support any pending proposals to do that, like a carbon tax or a clean energy standard...'We do have a lot of [member] companies who already are clearly saying they are for a price on carbon. Well, guess what, there are a lot of others that don’t. Clearly, we don’t have consensus among the members. So we don’t support a price on carbon at the moment. We’re also not opposing one. We’re not lobbying against a carbon tax of any kind.' —Marty Durbin, president, U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute" 

If you oppose a carbon tax, please contact us and take a stand.

Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance
Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom
Thomas A. Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Richard Manning, Americans for Limited Government
Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks
Craig Richardson, E&E Legal
Benjamin Zycher, American Enterprise Institute
Jason Hayes, Mackinac Center
David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation
Seton Motley, Less Government
Nathan Nascimento, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce
Isaac Orr, Center of the American Experiment
David T. Stevenson & Clint Laird, Caesar Rodney Institute
John Droz, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
Jim Karahalios, Axe the Carbon Tax
Mark Mathis, Clear Energy Alliance
Mandy Gunasekara, Energy 45
Jack Ekstrom, PolicyWorks America

Energy Markets

 
WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $44.04
Natural Gas: ↓ $1.75
Gasoline: ↓ $2.40
Diesel: ↓ $2.83
Heating Oil: ↓ $143.55
Brent Crude Oil: ↓ $48.02
US Rig Count: ↓ 807

 
Friend on Facebook Friend on Facebook
Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter
Forward to a Friend Forward to a Friend
Our mailing address is:
1155 15th Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC xxxxxx
Want to change how you receive these emails?
update your preferences
unsubscribe from this list