Thales Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 (edited) When it comes to the most sanctimonious advocates, in the US, regarding global warming they are nothing but "hot air". John Kerry, who has been appointed by US President Biden, to lead the charge famously stated that he had to fly private jets as he was an important person! So in the name of saving the environment, Kerry believes he has a right to pollute. Very Orwellian. To my knowledge, the elite political leaders in the US are all talk and no-action, as Greta Thunberg highlighted. They do not modify their behavior to practice what they preach. At this time, I will focus on Biden's attendance at the Glasgow climate summit. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/31/1050958992/biden-says-he-worries-that-cutting-oil-production-too-fast-will-hurt-working-peo Quote President Biden said on Sunday that the world can't immediately stop using oil and said OPEC and Russia need to pump more of it, even as he pushes the world to pledge to cut climate-changing carbon emissions at the Glasgow climate summit this week. What is significant, is that the article purposely fails to mention that Biden created an oil and gas shortage in the US by cancelling and/or prohibiting US oil and gas production. So Biden is creating the problem that he wants (demands) others to fix. Biden demands that other countries produce more oil. Biden has absolutely no sense of responsibility or apparent awareness that he created the problem that he is demanding that others solve. Furthermore, by demanding that OPEC and Russia pump more oil, all that Biden has done is to transfer the negative environmental effects from the US to foreign countries. That does not accomplish the claimed objectives of the Glasgow climate change summit to reduce CO2 emissions. There is an actual possibility that pumping oil in a foreign country with less environmental controls and the need to transport the oil thousands of miles in oceangoing tankers will actually lead to greater CO2 emissions!!!! The article also briefly touched on the logistics "traffic jam" in the US. Again, the paper fails to "point the finger of blame" at Biden. Biden is not directly responsible for this logistical nightmare. Nevertheless, Biden's administration appears to be using this "crisis" for naked political gain. Pete Buttigieg, the US Secretary of Transportation, remarked that his problem would not be solved until Biden's infrastructure legislation was passed. Additionally, the "crises" seems to involve certain administrative regulations, that if waived would allow private enterprise to resolve the crises. For example, allowing the use of non-union drivers and to allow truck drivers who own their own trucks to carry cargo. These administrative waivers are not apparently being considered. Consequently, the Biden administration is allowing the logistical nightmare to fester for political gain. Edited November 2, 2021 by Thales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 It's time to pay rich countries... We promise not to spend it on bribes, corruption or drug cartels. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 9, 2021 Report Share Posted November 9, 2021 https://ucsusa.org/resources/bill-gates-and-advanced-nuclear-reactors now nuclear power is green? Lol. This globalist man; Bill Gates III likes to get involved in everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 https://www.firstpost.com/world/canadian-woman-becomes-worlds-first-patient-to-be-diagnosed-with-climate-change-10122911.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 02/11/2021 at 8:31 PM, Lion.Kanzen said: It's time to pay rich countries... Commas are important people! SCNR 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 02/11/2021 at 6:46 AM, Thales said: Biden created an oil and gas shortage in the US by cancelling and/or prohibiting US oil and gas production Keep in mind that Biden was cancelling lease sales of public lands and stopping development of future oil and gas production. I don't think it resulted in the shutting off of any oil or gas production in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: Keep in mind that Biden was cancelling lease sales of public lands and stopping development of future oil and gas production. I don't think it resulted in the shutting off of any oil or gas production in the USA. Indeed. There is no oil "shortage" caused by Biden's actions. It may have caused futures to go up, but that is a completely different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 14 minutes ago, Thales said: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/ From the graph, the reduction in production happened in 2020 and that was before Biden entered office, and I guess it was due to the pandemic's first outburst in the USA in March 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 If we want to keep the planet habitable less oil should be burned, so oil shortage sounds like a good thing. The market will fix it! And come up with other alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Thales said: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/ My guy, the biggest drop in that graph is when Trump is in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 10, 2021 Report Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ The Decline in US oil and gas production that occurred during the Trump administration can be attributed to the decline in the US gross domestic product, a period of economic recession resulting from the Covid pandemic. Edited November 11, 2021 by Thales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) The Double Irony Of Asking OPEC To Increase Oil Production Quote But people don’t like paying higher gasoline prices. So, the first irony is that the Biden Administration asked OPEC to pump more oil, undermining its COP26 messaging of reducing fossil fuel consumption. At the G-20 meeting in Rome, President Biden complained: “The idea that Russia and Saudi Arabia and other major producers are not going to pump more oil so people can have gasoline to get to and from work, for example, is not right.” President Biden pleaded with OPEC this week to pump more oil. Those pleas were rebuffed, and late in the week Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm called on oil-producing nations to immediately increase crude supplies so people won’t be hurt by high prices this winter. The second irony in this situation is that one country that is producing a lot less oil than it was 18 months ago is the U.S. And policies that are hostile to the oil industry — indeed that will ultimately curtail U.S. oil production — potentially lead us to a place like this. Secretary Granholm seemed unclear on why U.S. producers haven’t ramped production back up: “I don’t know why at $80 a barrel those incentives are not there. During Covid, it was down — they backed off because demand was not there because people were staying home, we know that. Now that things are back up, the production should be meeting that [demand], there has been rigs that have been added but not fully.” There are at least three reasons why production hasn’t completely rebounded from the spring 2020 plunge. First, some producers went out of business when prices fell. Some of that production isn’t coming back quickly. Second, you can expect that some marginally economic wells were permanently shut down when prices plunged. But the third factor may be the most important. Oil production doesn’t respond quickly to rising price signals. Last year when prices plunged, the number of wells drilling for oil plummeted. Those rigs are slowly coming back online, but there is a lag of months or even years between drilling for oil and oil production. So, oil that we could have expected right now isn’t there, because the rig count plunged 18 months ago. The rig count has been climbing back all year, but it is still below pre-pandemic levels. Energy Sec’y Granholm Laughs, Blames OPEC When Asked Her Plan to Increase Oil Production Biden and Granholm have been attempting to turn-off the oil and gas production spigot. One aspect of this was the canceling of the Keystone pipeline project. Recently a "new" issue has arisen, the potential cancellation of an upgrade to the Enbridge "Line 5" pipeline. This potential cancellation is currently mired in political gobbledygook and doublespeak with Biden administration of course claiming that this issue is only being "studied". Nevertheless it continues to point to the Biden administration seeking to actively put the hydrocarbon industry "out-of-business" and not to increase production despite perceived shortages. But the point that I wish to make, is that the Biden administration, if it wanted to, could increase oil and gas production by restoring projects and issuing more permits for production. It is not the responsibility of OPEC to produce more hydrocarbons for the benefit of those living in the US. For the Biden administration seemingly refuse to acknowledge that the US can't produce more hydrocarbons is repugnant misdirection. In December 2019 the US produced nearly 13 million Barrels per Day (BPD). In August 2021, the US produced just over 11 million BPD. So the Biden administration, if it wants, would seem to have an opportunity to increase production. But for Granholm to laugh at that potential and dismiss that opportunity, that is an arrogant travesty. The environmental community should also be incensed at the sleight of hand that the Biden administration is pulling. Demanding that OPEC pump more oil exports US pollution to other countries. Additionally, if OPEC produces more hydrocarbons to send to the US, they are creating more CO2 emissions and environmental hazards. The hydrocarbons will have to be transported by ship over thousands of miles. The hydrocarbons will also have to be loaded and unloaded from those ships. The loading, movement, and offloading of cargo creates opportunities for mistakes to occur. Edited November 11, 2021 by Thales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Thales said: But the point that I wish to make, is that the Biden administration, if it wanted to, could increase oil and gas production by restoring projects and issuing more permits for production. It is not the responsibility of OPEC to produce more hydrocarbons for the benefit of those living in the US. I don't think you understand the time difference between cancelling future projects in the US, and OPEC oil selling (they don't ever slow drilling, they just slow selling) . When OPEC wants the price to be higher, they simply sell less oil. Energy infrastructure is expensive and it is not feasible to expand oil production capacity simply because of price hikes dictated by OPEC that can sometimes last only a month. The best way to fix the situation (which is not one of long term oil availability, but one of short term trade economics) would be to discuss this with OPEC and try to get a lower price, otherwise oil will still be very expensive. I am not saying this is going to be successful, just that it makes no sense to build more rigs/wells just for price fluctuations. 38 minutes ago, Thales said: Demanding that OPEC pump more oil exports US pollution to other countries Do you think OPEC countries care about pollution? Also please consider the fact that those hydrocarbons are burned in the USA despite being unearthed from OPEC, so that means all the pollution and carbon emissions happen in the USA and not in Saudi Arabia and such countries. This means that this is not a "scheme" to make the USA look like it has lower carbon emissions than it does. Edited November 11, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 invest in Nuclear energy like China. Second, why their leaders spend expensive trips on gasoline cars and private jets? As I understand the Biden delegation I have more than 30 vehicles. Third, stop donating to NGOs that have turned the climate into capitalist corporativist eco-fascism, for example Green Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 27 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: Second, why their leaders spend expensive trips on gasoline cars and private jets? As I understand the Biden delegation I have more than 30 vehicles. I see this kind of comment all of the time. Climate Change is real and a clear and present danger whether or not political leaders and the rich act virtuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: I see this kind of comment all of the time. Climate Change is real and a clear and present danger whether or not political leaders and the rich act virtuous. not in my country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 16 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: not in my country. Relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 To be honest, the overemphasis on individual actions, such as people having fewer children or the president being less ostentatious is crazy. Oil producers in the us even support reducing carbon footprint, because they know it can improve their image and it won't lead to any decrease in sales. People can not change their carbon footprint very easily while the systems they live in are not designed to reduce it. With all this talk about individual responsibility, people forget the amount of power that governments/corporations have over our behavior as well as the changes that could be made to decrease waste and emissions. For example, there is the good idea to make companies responsible for the packaging that they sell with their product. At least in the USA, packaging is not made to be easily dismantled. If it were, it would be easy to sort one's recycling and improve efficiency there. I feel this should be a no-brainer and all it requires are some new, clever designs for packaging. Another idea would be to sponsor car trade ins, exchanging super old gas guzzlers for newer electric cars or efficient hybrids. I can totally understand people being financially trapped into continuing to use an old car, because they have exceeded the economic service life and now need to repair/ refuel very frequently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 Indeed. "Personal Responsibility" with climate change is right up there with "Vote With Your Wallet," lol. One can't choose personal responsibility and vote with their wallet if the options they are given are limited. There is no ethical consumption possible (on a large enough scale) in capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: don't think you understand the time difference between cancelling future projects in the US, and OPEC oil selling I fully understand that there is a time lag between cancelling projects and replacing those hydrocarbons through additional production. But you need to listen to the narrative being spewed by the Biden administration. They have made it clear that they seek to reduce the production of hydrocarbons in the US. They have followed through with actual actions. Now that a supply problem is developing, they are not offering to solve the problem - they act as if they don't have any role in solving the problem. Granholm insolently laughed in the face of the reporter when he asked her to explain how the Biden administration would solve the problem. One would think that the Biden administration, as the elected leaders of the US, would proactively propose measures to solve the supply shortage. That is what leaders are supposed to do. 1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: Do you think OPEC countries care about pollution? No, but again; if one is an environmentalist, then you should be infuriated that the US is pushing its environmental costs on other countries. Think about it this way, the US gets to reduce its carbon footprint unnaturally through an accounting gimmick by transferring that carbon footprint to Saudi Arabia. Edited November 11, 2021 by Thales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said: not in my country. I appreciate that you posted that image. Very few people acknowledge that it is people who generate through their very existence a carbon footprint. Want to solve the faux issue of climate change, reduce the number of people. Focusing on a carbon footprint and CO2 emissions is a faux solution to appease the gullible masses with an "easy" solution that really does nothing more than kick the can down the road. PS: The issue of the faux climate change hysteria goes way beyond CO2 emissions. It also involves issues such as deforestation, withdrawing too much water from aquifers, over harvesting renewable resources, such as fisheries, etc. Less population means less stress on these resources. Edited November 11, 2021 by Thales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 36 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: I see this kind of comment all of the time. Climate Change is real and a clear and present danger whether or not political leaders and the rich act virtuous. The political leaders really have no intention of modifying their behavior to meet climate change goals. Virtually all their remarks boil down to virtue signalling. That also indicates that the whole climate change narrative is nothing more than "hot air". Even Greta noted that (See the post of October 18 on this thread). Mark Levin in his book “American Marxism” pointed out that: “… experience shows that for those among them who are famous, wealthy, and/or powerful, they will continue to luxuriate in a lifestyle created by capitalism.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 3 hours ago, Thales said: The Decline in US oil and gas production that occurred during the Trump administration can be attributed to the decline in the US gross domestic product, a period of economic recession resulting from the Covid pandemic. I didn't blame Trump for the decline (I am sure he would prefer to pump as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible; he certainly does so through his own mouth). You blamed Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted November 11, 2021 Report Share Posted November 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, Thales said: Think about it this way, the US gets to reduce its carbon footprint unnaturally through an accounting gimmick by transferring that carbon footprint to Saudi Arabia. Are you serious? even if they buy saudi oil, burning it still releases emissions in the usa. This notably does not increase emissions in saudi arabia. Either way, this does not reduce USA's carbon footprint. A better example of exporting emissions is buying beef from brazil, where the emissions happen in the country the product is bought from. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b21ca1d0c15fb56b42c39b25a0a40815.jpg)
Recommended Posts