Your Morning Energy News
View this email in your browser ([link removed])
MORNING ENERGY NEWS | 04/29/2021
Subscribe Now ([link removed])
** Actually, you can. Currently, Joe's dreams will cost about $50,000 for each and every American family.
------------------------------------------------------------
National Review ([link removed]) (4/28/21) reports: "As Phil Klein notes, Joe Biden’s two big spending proposals (one on infrastructure and one on social programs), combined with the 'COVID relief' package he already passed, amount to $5.95 trillion in new spending — more than the entire pre-pandemic federal budget. Unfortunately, unlike the Bionic Man from the TV show that debuted back when Biden arrived in the Senate, the Six Trillion Dollar Man will not be 'better, stronger, faster.' Biden’s seemingly inexhaustible supply of things his dad told him does not seem to have included the old fatherly staple, 'Joey, money doesn’t grow on trees.' How do we put $5.95 trillion in context? I previously estimated the scale of Biden’s spending spree on a per-person and per-household basis. Now that we have updated figures, we can do that again.The 2020 Census found 331,449,281 people in the United States —
including children. Biden’s spending, if passed, would amount to $17,951.46 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The most recent Census estimate puts the number of U.S. households around 128,451,000 (that’s 2.58 persons per household if you’re keeping score). Biden’s new spending — remember, this is in addition to the existing federal, state, and local budgets — comes to $46,321.17 for each and every household in the United States. That is over 70 percent of median household income. Biden wants to blow through 70 percent of the typical family’s annual income just in spending proposed in his first 100 days in office. Nothing remotely like this has ever been done in American history. If you were setting out to purposely bankrupt the country, I’m not sure what you would do differently."
** Which, by the way, is about $50,000 more than anyone is personally willing to pay for Joe's Green New Deal...
------------------------------------------------------------
American Energy Alliance ([link removed]) (4/28/21) release: "As the Biden Administration attempts to make good on all of its recent proclamations with respect to global warming and renewable energy, the American Energy Alliance today released the results of a nationwide survey conducted in February of 1,000 voters (3.1% margin of error). The topline results of the survey, conducted by MWR Strategies, are included here. ([link removed]) The results indicate that voters want and expect minimal federal involvement in the energy sector. This sentiment is driven partly by cost considerations, partly by lack of trust in the government’s competence or its intentions, and partly by a strong and durable belief in the efficacy of private sector action. Specific response sets include:
Voters don’t want to pay to either address climate change or increase the use of renewable energy. There continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response from voters was 20 dollars. That is very similar to answers we have received to this question over the last few years, which suggests that climate change – despite the rhetoric – has stalled as an issue for most Americans."
** "Given the unclear long-term investment performance of ESG funds and the diversity of opinions on social issues, pension investment decisions should only be guided by the funds’ prime directive: to meet its financial obligations to current and future retirees."
------------------------------------------------------------
– Wayne Winegarden, Pacific Research Institute ([link removed])
============================================================
I'm not fooling' myself.
** American Spectator ([link removed])
(4/28/21) column: "In late March, the American Petroleum Institute — the national oil and gas industry trade association — announced its Climate Action Framework. The plan calls for federal spending on low-carbon research and development, expansion of subsidies for carbon capture technology, and, most strikingly, a price on carbon dioxide emissions, i.e., a carbon tax. Given that the American Petroleum Institute (API) represents industry titans like ExxonMobil and Halliburton, the announcement made headline news, with coverage from the Washington Post, Axios, and every political outlet in between. To the casual observer flipping through the paper or scanning morning emails, this looks like news indeed. But is it really?...Viewed through the cynic’s lens, API is endorsing a policy that it knows doesn’t stand a chance of getting signed into law. API specifically communicates that it will not endorse a tax on top of the existing thicket of regulations. While that does align with what’s
sometimes called the economic case for a carbon tax, it’s out of step with today’s politics. The reigning party in Washington wants nothing to do with a tax swap...If API’s members feel compelled to contribute to climate solutions, there are ways they can tangibly do so. Lobbying for a carbon tax policy that will never see the light of day won’t cut it."
** ([link removed])
If you want a preview of Joe's plans for America's energy prices give a listen to what's happening in the other Washington...
** ([link removed])
As the scales fall from their eyes, E&E acknowledges what the swamp already knows - the climate crisis isn’t really about the climate.
** E&E News ([link removed])
(4/28/21) reports: "Joe Biden won the presidency with a call to treat climate change as 'the existential challenge that's going to determine our future.' 'The cry for survival comes from the planet itself," President Biden said in his inaugural speech, 'a cry that can't be any more desperate or any more clear.' Now, nearing the hundredth day of his presidency, Biden has recast climate change as just one of several challenges. Depending on the day or the audience, global warming can be an 'existential threat' — or up for negotiation...Biden has already strayed somewhat from his initial climate agenda. After campaigning on a climate plan to spend $2 trillion over four years, the White House now proposes a timeline of at least eight years and diverting about half the money to other issues, like caregivers and broadband. Biden also walked back his pledge, reiterated during the autumn presidential debates, of 'no fracking and/or oil [drilling] on federal land.' The administration has paused new
oil and gas leasing pending a review, but officials say that is only temporary. Meanwhile, the Interior Department is still issuing new drilling permits for existing leases. Those moves reflect the push and pull of the Democratic coalition. Those same internal dynamics are already shaping the congressional process on infrastructure."
Energy Markets
WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $65.27
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.94
Gasoline: ~ $2.88
Diesel: ~ $3.07
Heating Oil: ↑ $197.19
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $68.75
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↑ 521
** Donate ([link removed])
** Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to AEA's Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to IER's Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])
** Suite 900 ([link removed])
** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])
** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
