Maybe they will use the money from the global carbon tax to fix the escalator.

View this email in your browser

DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 10/15/2025

Subscribe Now

Environmentalists have their candidate in Virginia, and he's quite the character.

RealClearEnergy (10/13/25) reports: "In last night's Virginia gubernatorial debate, Democrat Abigail Spanberger twisted herself into verbal pretzels, desperately dodging the one question that demanded moral clarity: Will she withdraw her endorsement of Attorney General candidate Jay Jones after his horrific text messages fantasizing about murdering a political opponent and violence against his young children? The answer, buried under layers of deflection, was a resounding no... Spanberger's evasion is damning, but she's far from alone in this moral abdication. Jones' texts weren't mere heated words; they explicitly advocated executing then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert with 'two bullets' to the head, then chillingly added that his 2- and 5-year-old children 'should watch daddy die.' It's the stuff of nightmares. Yet, in the weeks since these revelations, there's been no stampede to withdraw endorsements or yank financial support. That's not just sickening—it's a flashing red warning light, especially given the violent undercurrents in the movements propping up Jones. Consider the money trail. According to campaign finance records, three of Jones' top 10 donors are environmental groups, funneling nearly $2 million into his coffers: the Clean Virginia Fund ($1.6 million), the Virginia League of Conservation Voters ($182,000), and the Green Advocacy Project ($150,000). These aren't fringe players; they're powerhouse advocates for 'green' policies, organizations that lecture America regularly on ethics, sustainability, and moral imperatives. And yet, when contacted about refunding their donations or pulling support in light of Jones' bloodlust, not one of them responded."

"Endless debate and shifting compliance deadlines are simply an exercise in procrastination — Brussels will have to deal with the ramifications of their Green Deal at one point or another... It is best we tackle this now, while we have a plan for deregulation at our fingertips, instead of waiting until businesses feel further pain and voters force a change. It is time to bring growth back to the EU, but that cannot happen until we end the era of overregulation."

– S amuel Furfari Ph.D., ESCP London

Wrong direction.

OilPrice.com (10/12/25) op-ed: "There have been discussions around fracking in the U.K. for years, with the government going back and forth on whether to support new operations. Politicians have explored the potential for fracking, which has been successful for fossil fuel recovery in the United States, while environmentalists have fought against it. While many may have thought that fracking had been banned long ago in the U.K., a decisive ban on the practice had not actually taken place... Now, the U.K. Labour government plans to ban fracking once and for all. In October, Energy Minister Ed Miliband announced that Labour was accelerating plans to introduce a 'total ban' on fracking. The Party aims to introduce the ban this autumn. While the current government never planned to permit new fracking projects, the move is mainly directed at preventing the right-wing, populist Reform Party from making such a move if it should come into power."

The machinery of government.

Wall Street Journal (10/14/25) op-ed: "Oh, the humanity, I sarcastically thought on reading the names and affiliations of 39 scientists behind a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine finding that, as the New York Times put it, 'greenhouse gases are, in fact, a danger.' Read on and realize their book-length report is concocted for a bureaucratic and legalistic purpose, not a scientific one. It will disappear into the maw of a futile partisan legal squabble over the Trump administration’s effort to repeal the 2009 so-called endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. This finding, in the Obama years, would come to justify regulatory actions that have zero impact—none—on climate change. Not only are U.S. emissions too small a share of the global total to matter; in practice, EPA actions mostly just drive U.S. emissions offshore. Whatever they think, the 39 scientists are part of a machine now defending its own activity and privilege, in one of biggest boondoggles in the history of policy making."

I'm sure the UN will use the money generated from this tax wisely.

Wall Street Journal (10/14/25) editorial: "Voters are showing their opposition to the net-zero climate agenda whenever they get the chance. But that isn’t stopping the United Nations, which this week is poised to impose what amounts to a global tax on carbon emissions. Yes, this is the definition of taxation without representation. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a U.N. body based in London, hopes at its meeting this week to secure final approval for its 'net-zero framework' for shipping. The measure would impose charges per metric ton of carbon-dioxide that ships emit above certain limits; the tax would be $100 or $380 per metric ton depending on various factors. That could translate to an annual tax take of $10 billion-$12 billion."

Energy Markets

WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $58.86
Natural Gas: ↓ $2.98
Gasoline: ↓ $3.07

Diesel: ↓ $3.66
Heating Oil: ↓ $219.22
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $62.48
US Rig Count: ↓ 569

Donate

Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast

Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast

Connect on Facebook

Follow on X

Subscribe on YouTube

Forward to a Friend

Our mailing address is:
1155 15th Street NW
Suite 525
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
update your preferences
unsubscribe from this list