Remember when...

View this email in your browser

DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 06/01/2022

Subscribe Now

Big Green Inc. better lawyer up.

Daily Signal (5/31/22) reports: "House Republicans will reactivate investigations into the relationship between hostile foreign governments and activists who oppose American energy production if their party regains a congressional majority in November, congressional sources and policy analysts say. As rising gas prices and inflation bedevil consumers, Congress should devote more time and attention to “anti-energy campaigns” that undercut America’s geopolitical standing while benefiting strategic competitors such as China and Russia, Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the Washington-based National Center for Public Policy Research, a free-market think tank, told The Daily Signal. Congressional investigations that focus on the foreign ties of nonprofit advocacy groups, as well as the litigation and regulation they advance at the expense of U.S. oil and gas projects, would contrast sharply with recent House hearings targeting American energy companies, Cohen suggested in an interview. Cohen is particularly critical of Democrats on the House Oversight and Reform Committee for pushing a climate change agenda that he calls 'detached from scientific facts,' 'offensive to First Amendment freedoms,' and laced with 'directives from special interests.' The committee’s hearing last October, called 'Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action,' became the subject of litigation from a nonprofit, public interest law firm that alleges violations of House ethics rules."

" When you scratch beneath the platitudinal veneer of social responsibility and making the world a better place, ESG guidelines are exposed for what they really are: A way for the woke left to control companies. Like all the other three-letter devices employed by the left — think critical race theory and social-emotional learning — ESG is just another way to sow division and hate among American citizens."

– Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks

Reckless runaway spending, hostility to domestic oil and gas production, denial. That was the Biden Administration's attitude on inflation. It’s kind of hard for us to believe they suddenly care...

Washington Post (5/31/22) reports: "The White House launched a new push Tuesday to contain the political damage caused by inflation after President Biden complained for weeks to aides that his administration was not doing enough to publicly explain the fastest price increases in roughly four decades. Aiming to demonstrate to the public that it is responding to its concerns, Biden met with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell in the Oval Office, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about inflation and sent top aides across major networks to push the administration’s economic message. The flurry of activity comes after Biden has privately grumbled to top White House officials over the administration’s handling of inflation, expressing frustration over the past several months that aides were not doing enough to confront the problem directly, two people familiar with the president’s comments said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. The flurry of moves reflects a new urgency within the White House as it grapples with the growing likelihood that high inflation will extend through the midterm elections, eclipsing Biden’s agenda and undermining his ability to tout his accomplishments — and that there may be little Biden can do about it."

The White House could try reversing its openly hostile actions against America's oil and gas producers.

Politico (5/31/22) reports: "For the past several months, a White House-led team of economic specialists has marked each day in the same way: With a painstaking, state-by-state examination of gasoline prices and the intricate market forces pushing them relentlessly upward. Senior officials and others close to President Joe Biden view those prices as the cost that most directly affects voters’ everyday lives, and therefore their perception of the economy as well. As such, Biden and his top advisers fixate on them with an intensity that some aides describe as obsessive. White House chief of staff Ron Klain has grown particularly absorbed by the issue, checking the average price of a gallon of gas every morning. He’s lamented that it’s the one item everyone knows the cost of because gas station billboards are so ubiquitous throughout the country. 'Could they advertise anything else?” Klain rhetorically, and ruefully, asked one recent visitor. The White House’s focus on gas prices is bred from two sobering political conclusions top officials have made. The first is that they have little control over the problem. The second is that as prices rise at the pump, so do Democrats’ odds of a midterm wipeout — especially as the average U.S. gallon of gas hits fresh record highs. 'There really isn’t one silver bullet,' said one person familiar with the discussions. 'It’s a really difficult issue to message around when you can’t deny the reality.'"

To paraphrase John Podesta: “We have done extensive research on a carbon tax. It all sucks."

American Spectator (5/31/22) op-ed: "Over at National Review last week, the Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu dug into the nuts and bolts of a carbon tax and argued (credibly) that a carbon tax could be preferable to our existing jumble of climate regulations. As Muresianu describes, the specific effects a given carbon tax would have on an economy are dependent on its details. While any carbon tax would increase energy prices (about 80 percent of U.S. energy depends on carbon-based fuels), some tax proposals are decidedly worse than others. In 2019, Tax Foundation researchers concluded that a carbon tax would 'negatively impact output and employment,' 'reduce after-tax wages,' and “make the tax code less progressive,' but that what we did with the revenue would determine the general and distributional economic effects. Swapping in a carbon tax while cutting corporate rates, for example, returned the best GDP outcomes from among the options the Tax Foundation analyzed but was also found to be the most regressive, i.e., hard on low-income households. Alternatively, using carbon tax revenue for cash transfer payments offset the regressive result, but that traded against general economic outcomes, adversely impacting GDP and employment. That work comports with a Capital Alpha Partners (CAP) study the Institute for Energy Research published in 2018. CAP also found that using carbon tax revenue to fund corporate tax relief could boost output, but that doing so would force low-income households to 'bear the cost.'"

Energy Markets

WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $116.54
Natural Gas: ↑ $8.54
Gasoline: ↑ $4.67

Diesel: ↑ $5.53
Heating Oil: ↑ $409.31
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $117.61
US Rig Count: ↑ 806

Donate

Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast

Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast

Connect with us on Facebook

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