'This Isn't Just Bad Policy, It's Bad Politics': Biden Blocks Several Huge Natural Gas Projects 

Now, in the nebulous name of "climate change," the Biden administration has halted exports of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG.) Why? Because of biased research from environmental activists.

President Joe Biden has scored huge points with climate activists over his decision to pause export permits for liquified natural gas (LNG). 

Despite natural gas playing a key role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, activists are citing research they claim disputes that natural gas will do anything but exacerbate what they claim is a climate crisis. 

The proposed ban on gas stoves followed a similar pattern in which research was produced by anti-fossil fuel activists and then unquestioningly repeated by other activists and the media, which then led to policy proposals.

The proposed gas stove ban, you may remember, was closely — and hilariously — followed by the publication of several photos of the utterly clueless vice president in her own kitchen, next to — you guessed it — a gas stove. And like this move to halt LNG exports, the gas stove policy was based not on sound scientific analysis but on phony-baloney "research" put out by a climate activists group.

...in February (2023), the Department of Energy released efficiency standards for home appliances, which critics argue effectively bans on gas stoves.

The study was produced by Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), which promotes the wind and solar industry as a means to eliminate fossil fuels. The nonprofit had nearly $117 million in revenues, according to their 2022 tax filings, and the group enjoys large million-dollar donations, such as a $10 million gift in 2020 from Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ foundation, the Bezos Earth Fund.

Critics of RMI’s gas stove study argue that the quality of the data it used was poor, because it didn’t factor in findings of a 2013 by the International Study of Asthma and Allergies (ISAA), which is considered the most comprehensive global study on the topic to date.

The ISAA study concluded there is “no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.” Despite the criticism of the RMI study, states like New York are pursuing bans on natural gas hookups in new construction as a health measure.

In other words, the "research" was biased garbage, but New York is pushing ahead to legislate zero fossil-fuel use in new construction after 2025 for smaller buildings and 2028 for larger buildings. I can at least rest easy here, knowing that if the Biden administration tries to get Alaskans to give up our gas ranges or our wood stoves, they are going to have a fight on their hands.

While the Biden administration has been pushing the move to "renewables," that push is likewise based on biased and flawed presumptions, and one need look no further than the fact that the alternates — wind, solar, and so on — have to be subsidized because if they were not, nobody would use them. Why? Because they would be prohibitively expensive. Economics always tells the tale: Leftist policies on energy, like with so many other things, seem to operate on the ideas that you can 1) make something true by believing it really, really hard, and 2) you can convince people to act against their personal financial interests if you nag them long enough. Neither of those things is true, of course, but that doesn't stop them from attempting to drive energy prices through the roof.

There's another consideration: Much of America's LNG exports right now are going to Europe (without passing through the Red Sea, which isn't the case for anywhere else that Europe may be able to source LNG.) Most of the nations of the Continent have been starved of natural gas since the Ukraine War and the destruction of the Nordsteam pipeline. President Biden, in taking this step, is essentially cutting off the supply of energy to a bunch of nations that are ostensibly our allies. What options does Europe have to source the natural gas their economy depends on? Qatar? Iran?

And all of this is being done in the name of "climate change."

This all seems particularly ridiculous for those of us who have been corporate long enough to remember the late '60s and the early '70s, when pollution was a problem, when roadsides were littered, and when rivers were catching fire; those things have been addressed, and if you remember these earlier days, it's kind of amazing to look around and see how much better things are now. It's also amazing to remember that the doom-criers in those days were warning us about another Ice Age. 

But, with the climate-change movement as well as some other social issues, Clark's Law of Social Issues Degradation applies: "Every social movement will continue until it reaches absurdity."

On the climate change issue, we've been there for some time.