View this email in your browser
MORNING ENERGY NEWS  |  07/21/2020
Subscribe Now

Voters have some thoughts on Joe's multi-trillion price tag.


Washington Times (7/19/20) reports: "Other than an enormously damaging and historically large tax increase, what else might Joe Biden do if elected president? It’s a safe bet that climate and infrastructure — which for the Democrats now mean much the same thing — are the next stops after tax increases. The House already has voted on its $1.5 trillion infrastructure wish list. The Biden campaign’s climate plan includes $1.7 trillion to address climate change, while the Biden-Sen. Bernard Sanders Unity plan (which reads like a Maoist document if you ever get the time) proposes $2 trillion in spending, or as they call it, 'investment.' For its part, the special committee the Biden campaign set up as part of its negotiations with Mr. Sanders offered up a plan that would cost $16 trillion — or about $55,000 for every American...Happily, those who wrote the climate plans have been eager to let everyone know how much they would cost. Each of the numbers — $16 trillion, $2 trillion, $1.5 trillion — are orders of magnitude greater than voters are willing to pay to be socially correct. In opinion research we have done over the last 15 years, including a nationwide survey conducted for the American Energy Alliance in May, voters have consistently indicated that they don’t place much of a priority on climate change. Moreover, when asked how much they are willing to pay to address climate change, the responses are always on the low end, with median numbers consistently between $25 and $50 a year."

"Biden claims we have nine years to fix climate change and promises a green future to save us.  In reality green energy markets are owned and dominated by China, and if we 'go green' we will go red."

 

– Daniel Turner,
Power The Future

The more developed the economy, the cleaner the air.


Bloomberg (7/1/20) reports: "Nestled in a valley in central Chile, near lakes and snowcapped mountains, sits one of the world’s most polluted cities. Every winter, sleepy Temuco plunges to the bottom of global air quality rankings. While notoriously polluted megacities such as Beijing and New Delhi have populations almost 100 times that of the tiny Chilean town, contributing to round the clock traffic and factory activity, Temuco’s contamination doesn’t come from economic activity. It comes from poverty. June through August, when the Southern Hemisphere is in winter, thermometers in Temuco drop to as low as 4º Celsius (39º Fahrenheit). Poor temuquenses, as the city’s 220,000 residents are known, have no choice but to burn cheap—often wet—firewood to keep warm...Chile’s government has been troubled by the periodic pollution spikes across southern Chile and is seeking to lower power bills so more Chileans can afford to use electricity for heating rather than wood, Energy Minister Juan Carlos Jobet said last month in a Bloomberg Radio interview. But that’ll take time and likely won’t impact habits this winter. Damp wood is 'cheap for the buyer,' Jobet said, 'but very expensive for society.'"

This is what happens when Bill McKibben moves to your state. 


E&E News (7/21/20) reports: "Vermont Electric Cooperative encouraged customers to reduce their electricity use yesterday and this evening when demand for electricity is expected to spike during high temperatures across the region. The member-owned utility is advising customers that between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. to turn off unnecessary lights; delay the use of major appliances like dishwashers and washing machines; and reduce the use of air conditioning as much as safely possible. VEC, which serves about 32,000 customers in northern Vermont, said conservation will help the utility save money. 'When VEC can reduce the cost to buy and transmit electricity when demand is high across the region, it helps control electricity rates for all co-op members over the long term,' said VEC's Jake Brown."

AG = Activist General


Washington Examiner (7/21/20) reports: "Keith Ellison and Karl Racine, attorneys general of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, respectively, filed fraud charges this June against fossil fuel companies and alleged co-conspirators for participating in public discourse on climate change. Ellison’s accusation is that Exxon Mobil Corp., Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute have perpetrated 'a conspiracy to deceive the public about climate change.' Racine’s accusation is that Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and Chevron have 'systematically and intentionally misled consumers' about fossil fuel products’ climate impact. While one might expect that Ellison and Racine would have their sights trained on the social unrest within their jurisdictions and the justice reforms that are legitimately within their purview, the climate show must go on. And a show this is. The attorneys general theorize secret deals and private pressure where Occam’s razor suggests only an alignment of perspectives. The oil and gas companies, the trade associations, and the think tanks name-dropped in these complaints (which includes, in the Minnesota case, my own organization, the Institute for Energy Research) are all interested in the implications of climate science. In a free and open society, they are all at liberty to pursue knowledge and debate it. Sometimes, these entities reach similar conclusions. At other times, as with the carbon tax debate, they differ sharply." 

Energy Markets

 
WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $42.08
Natural Gas: ↑ $1.67
Gasoline: ~ $2.19
Diesel: ~ $2.43
Heating Oil: ↑ $128.12
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $44.58
US Rig Count: ↑ 278

 
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