Trump's 'High Energy' Policies

At this point in the campaign, when the leaked evidence of Hillary's abuse of power and Trump's purported sexual improprieties seem to be the main topics of debate, "lesser" matters such as providing for the nation's energy needs have gotten lost in the fray.  Yet those matters have a lot to do with which candidate is "fit" to be president.

Not surprisingly, Hillary's energy policy is more of the same: the same green energy waste and corruption that we have seen for eight years under Obama.  By contrast, Trump has outlined a coherent program of energy development that puts America first, and he has stuck with that program from day one – unlike Hillary, who approved the Keystone XL pipeline before she opposed it.  

Donald Trump's energy policies, outlined in a speech on September 22, offer a positive, pro-growth agenda for the future.  These policies contrast with Hillary's more-of-the-same job-killing regulation in the name of saving the planet from, so far, nonexistent man-caused climate change.  While preserving clean air and water, Trump's energy agenda offers a plan that would add 500,000 jobs and reignite the economy.

The contrast between Trump and Clinton energy policies couldn't be greater.  Hillary has stated repeatedly that she intends even greater funding for a thousand new Solyndras and other boondoggles to propitiate the god of global warming.  Her anti-fracking agenda, including more regulation and local veto power over new drilling, would effectively shut down much of the U.S. oil and gas business.  As for new drilling on federal lands and expanded offshore exploration, there's little likelihood it would happen.  As with so much else, Clinton has remained mum on this important point.  As with all else, she can't be said to have an energy policy in the sense of a policy that supports the production of energy.  What she has is a political position on energy, which is another matter.

Trump's policies offer hope to American workers, consumers, and investors.  As he declared on Sept. 22, America possesses $50 trillion's worth of "untapped energy" on federal lands alone – energy that has been off limits during the Obama administration.  Under the influence of environmentalist donors, a Clinton administration would be just as loath to open those resources to drilling.  Left-wing donors would hold no such control over Donald Trump, which is why every major environmental group has adamantly opposed his election.  The Environmental Defense Fund's "Action Statement on the Presidential Race" leaves no doubt where it stands on Trump. 

In addition to development of oil and gas on federal lands, a renewal of Appalachian coal mining and opening up of export facilities for western coal, such as the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, would restore prosperity to large coal-mining regions of America.  No one doubts that Obama has carried out a war on coal, but he has not been able to shut down coal exports entirely.  Hillary Clinton would continue to deploy the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to ban coal exports via executive fiat.   

Offshore drilling offers another avenue of growth.  It is impossible to say how great America's offshore energy resources really are since Democrats have blocked even initial surveys off America's East Coast.  Energy deposits greater than what exists in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia may lie offshore the Atlantic states.  The shame is that the U.S. continues to import oil from both of those countries when it could as easily be produced at home, employing American workers and American technology.  Instead of shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to dictators abroad, an energy-independent America could put that money in the pockets of American workers and investors.

The devastation of the Obama energy policies is often overlooked by those who think that only a few "oil states" and "coal states" are affected.  In reality, fracking restrictions have hurt workers in every state – like those in New York, where fracking is banned outright, as well as those in manufacturing states such as Illinois and Indiana, where companies such as Caterpillar and Cummins are harmed by declining equipment sales.

Likewise for coal.  According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Obama's war on coal will cost 224,000 jobs and $550 billion in lost household income annually.  It will also put our energy security at risk.  It may seem that coal can be phased out in favor of natural gas and eventually wind and solar, but that phase-out is a costly and risky venture. 

Hillary has vowed to continue Obama's anti-energy policies.  Her infamous pledge to "put coal workers out of work" left no doubt as to her intentions.  Her earlier pledge to "seize the profits of ExxonMobil and give them to green energy outfits" – those Exxon profits that belong to millions of conservative investors, large numbers of them retirees of modest means – is also revealing.  The result of such Chávez-style expropriation would be economic devastation – not just for Exxon Mobil and its investors, but for the U.S. economy as a whole.

That is the reality that Hillary Clinton doesn't understand and never will: the free market operates on the basis of profit and loss, and loss spells ruin not just for private companies but for the economy as a whole.  Donald Trump understands the free market.  More energy production is better than less, more job growth is better than less, more profitability is better than less.

There is something very cynical about the Obama-Clinton war on domestic energy.  In bowing to the environmental lobby, their policies pander to the worst and most corrupt instincts of back-room politics.  Donald Trump is a patriot, not a politician, and he would bring prosperity back to the U.S. energy industry and to America as a whole.

Donald Trump is fond of saying that four more years of Obama's policies would be a "disaster."  When it comes to energy policy, and much else, that assessment is exactly right.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

At this point in the campaign, when the leaked evidence of Hillary's abuse of power and Trump's purported sexual improprieties seem to be the main topics of debate, "lesser" matters such as providing for the nation's energy needs have gotten lost in the fray.  Yet those matters have a lot to do with which candidate is "fit" to be president.

Not surprisingly, Hillary's energy policy is more of the same: the same green energy waste and corruption that we have seen for eight years under Obama.  By contrast, Trump has outlined a coherent program of energy development that puts America first, and he has stuck with that program from day one – unlike Hillary, who approved the Keystone XL pipeline before she opposed it.  

Donald Trump's energy policies, outlined in a speech on September 22, offer a positive, pro-growth agenda for the future.  These policies contrast with Hillary's more-of-the-same job-killing regulation in the name of saving the planet from, so far, nonexistent man-caused climate change.  While preserving clean air and water, Trump's energy agenda offers a plan that would add 500,000 jobs and reignite the economy.

The contrast between Trump and Clinton energy policies couldn't be greater.  Hillary has stated repeatedly that she intends even greater funding for a thousand new Solyndras and other boondoggles to propitiate the god of global warming.  Her anti-fracking agenda, including more regulation and local veto power over new drilling, would effectively shut down much of the U.S. oil and gas business.  As for new drilling on federal lands and expanded offshore exploration, there's little likelihood it would happen.  As with so much else, Clinton has remained mum on this important point.  As with all else, she can't be said to have an energy policy in the sense of a policy that supports the production of energy.  What she has is a political position on energy, which is another matter.

Trump's policies offer hope to American workers, consumers, and investors.  As he declared on Sept. 22, America possesses $50 trillion's worth of "untapped energy" on federal lands alone – energy that has been off limits during the Obama administration.  Under the influence of environmentalist donors, a Clinton administration would be just as loath to open those resources to drilling.  Left-wing donors would hold no such control over Donald Trump, which is why every major environmental group has adamantly opposed his election.  The Environmental Defense Fund's "Action Statement on the Presidential Race" leaves no doubt where it stands on Trump. 

In addition to development of oil and gas on federal lands, a renewal of Appalachian coal mining and opening up of export facilities for western coal, such as the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, would restore prosperity to large coal-mining regions of America.  No one doubts that Obama has carried out a war on coal, but he has not been able to shut down coal exports entirely.  Hillary Clinton would continue to deploy the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to ban coal exports via executive fiat.   

Offshore drilling offers another avenue of growth.  It is impossible to say how great America's offshore energy resources really are since Democrats have blocked even initial surveys off America's East Coast.  Energy deposits greater than what exists in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia may lie offshore the Atlantic states.  The shame is that the U.S. continues to import oil from both of those countries when it could as easily be produced at home, employing American workers and American technology.  Instead of shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to dictators abroad, an energy-independent America could put that money in the pockets of American workers and investors.

The devastation of the Obama energy policies is often overlooked by those who think that only a few "oil states" and "coal states" are affected.  In reality, fracking restrictions have hurt workers in every state – like those in New York, where fracking is banned outright, as well as those in manufacturing states such as Illinois and Indiana, where companies such as Caterpillar and Cummins are harmed by declining equipment sales.

Likewise for coal.  According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Obama's war on coal will cost 224,000 jobs and $550 billion in lost household income annually.  It will also put our energy security at risk.  It may seem that coal can be phased out in favor of natural gas and eventually wind and solar, but that phase-out is a costly and risky venture. 

Hillary has vowed to continue Obama's anti-energy policies.  Her infamous pledge to "put coal workers out of work" left no doubt as to her intentions.  Her earlier pledge to "seize the profits of ExxonMobil and give them to green energy outfits" – those Exxon profits that belong to millions of conservative investors, large numbers of them retirees of modest means – is also revealing.  The result of such Chávez-style expropriation would be economic devastation – not just for Exxon Mobil and its investors, but for the U.S. economy as a whole.

That is the reality that Hillary Clinton doesn't understand and never will: the free market operates on the basis of profit and loss, and loss spells ruin not just for private companies but for the economy as a whole.  Donald Trump understands the free market.  More energy production is better than less, more job growth is better than less, more profitability is better than less.

There is something very cynical about the Obama-Clinton war on domestic energy.  In bowing to the environmental lobby, their policies pander to the worst and most corrupt instincts of back-room politics.  Donald Trump is a patriot, not a politician, and he would bring prosperity back to the U.S. energy industry and to America as a whole.

Donald Trump is fond of saying that four more years of Obama's policies would be a "disaster."  When it comes to energy policy, and much else, that assessment is exactly right.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).