Joe Biden's energy policy leaves lots to be desired
On July 14, Joe Biden gave a summary of one of his proposals to destroy the U.S. economy. This one would eliminate the use of oil. He said science says we have only nine years left to address the problem.
"If I have the honor of being elected president, we're not just going to tinker around the edges. We're going to make historic investments that will seize the opportunity, meet this moment in history," Biden said in a speech unveiling the plan.
It appears that Biden determined his policy after reading an almost 100-year-old newspaper in his basement. In November 1922, the Washington Post had a front-page story saying temperatures were rising, oceans were dying, icecaps were melting, and coastal cities would soon be gone. We have heard these same dire predictions for almost 100 years but no matter how wrong they have been, we are told that the science is settled. Debate is not allowed. We also were told in 1970 that we only had a few years left because of global cooling.
It is the same with COVID-19. No matter how far off the predictions have been and how wrong the pronouncements have been from the "experts," we are told the science is settled.
Most of the media along with other Americans are rightfully excited that the U.S. will again send American astronauts into space from U.S. soil instead of being required to hitch rides with the Russians as they have for nine years.
So what happens to the space program if we elect Biden and enact the Democrats' proposed policies to stop using oil?
What happens to the Hawaiian economy and travel and leisure industries if Democrats get their way?
What do we do for farmers and others when their equipment becomes worthless without oil?
What will we do for financial institutions when their collateral of cars, trucks, planes, and farm and construction equipment becomes worthless?
Where are the junkyards to handle the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, trains, planes, motorcycles, and other equipment powered by oil?
How do we produce, transport, and install solar panels and wind turbines without machines powered by fossil fuels?
How would we have mobilized for the pandemic without oil?
How do we defend ourselves against Russia, China, and Iran without oil?
Haven't the length and quality of life increased substantially since the advent of fossil fuels? Why would we want to go backwards? Why would we call policies that move us backwards progressive?
Why are we having a heat wave this summer when oil use is so far down? I would think that if oil consumption were the problem, all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships not being used, along with offices and malls not using A.C. and electricity, would have caused a temperature drop if there was a correlation. Wouldn't it also help that the glorious masks are trapping all that heat causing CO2?
The truth is, there is no scientific data that shows a direct correlation between temperature and oil use or population. The temperature has always fluctuated. A little ice age ended around 1850, and a little warming would always be normal after an ice age ended.
The truth is that the Democrats' energy policies and other policies have never been about science. They are all about the government controlling the people. The founders envisioned that the government should work for the people, but the Democrats believe that the people should obey the government no matter what they do.
I saw this morning that Lee Greenwood's decades-old song "God Bless the USA" hit number one for the first time. Hopefully we don't elect someone whose intent is to remake and destroy the greatest and most generous country that ever existed.
Why do most journalists reflexively support Democrat policies without asking questions? They essentially have become campaign workers for Democrats instead of being watchdogs for the people.
Image credit: Screen shot from a camera aimed at a television set, processed with FotoSketcher.