Pinkerton: Environment First, America Second — Biden’s Attempt to Go Green Is Hard to Ignore


    In the wake of rising energy costs, the Biden administration is now talking about expanding supply and reducing costs. Yet, it is not being efficient in this goal; meaning, it is shouting loudly for the expansion of energy, while in the background, trying to reduce it.

    On March 31st, the White House ordered the release of additional oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Biden said he'll “work like to the devil” to increase the supply of gas at the pump and put the entire blame for price increases on, oddly, Covid 19 and Vladimir Putin. In addition, citing an old Democratic game plan, he said that oil companies are “hoarding” supply, as they were claiming that the decrease in supply of the past year, which can be directly attributed on the Biden administration's executive order banning fossil fuels January 27, 2021 was somehow Exxon's responsibility.

    In a swift reaction to this demagoguery, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) tweeted “Our oil reserves are meant to assist us in times of emergency, NOT to compensate for bad policies.” And Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) gave further comments:

    Biden's strategy of “increase domestic production” is meant to blame American energy companies that are afflicted by regulations enacted by this administration, and also lawsuits brought by his political party. This is truly a lack of leadership.

    Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, who is also Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, published a full fact sheet with the apt title, “A Promise Kept: Biden's War on American Energy.” The document outlines the administration's policies in energy, side-by-side with a timeline of the rise in gas prices since Biden's election.

    Yes, it is true that the Biden administration would like us to believe that they are doing everything it can to provide help to Europe while keeping prices of energy low, and also to fight “climate change.” That's the three-in-one. Do you believe Biden is capable of pulling it off? No, I'm not sure. It seems, at present, the majority of top Democrats believe that out of all three goals combating environmental change is the most crucial. Like Biden himself declared in a speech on Wednesday. “Ultimately, we and the whole world need to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels altogether.” We're sorry, Ukraine! So sorry, American motorists! Our primary concern is penguins!

    Certain individuals within the Biden administration have said they believe the U.S. should produce more. For instance, on March 9th, the Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm flew to Houston to address an energy gathering:

    “We are fighting for our lives. This means that we need crude oil releases from Strategic Reserves around the globe. This means that you are producing more now, if and when you are able. I'm sure that your investors are telling you too. In these times of economic crises, we require more supply.”

    It sounds great. In actual fact, during past “war footings,” the Oil Patch has come through large. For instance in World War II, domestic oil production increased by one third. Additionally, there was a time when the U.S. built two oil pipelines connecting Texas and the Northeast. Each pipeline, which included the feeder line, measured about 1500 miles long. And they took approximately a year to construct.

    So, America has already done it and it's possible to repeat the same feats in the event that the laws were amended to allow it to be done. The most obvious concern now is about the environmental impact statements. which is a law which dates back to 1970 and has been a method used by those who claim to be “Green” but who are actually averse to paperwork and try to stop almost everything. The Biden administration hasn’t actually spoken out about changing anything.

    In reality, the Biden administration never speaks of changing environmental regulations to allow for greater American manufacturing of energy. It's not Granholm and not Biden and certainly not anyone else.

    Why is that? A simple explanation is that the Bidenites simply don't like the idea. Sure, Granholm could have said some nice things in Texas, as did Biden in the White House, yet within the policymaking corridors the Bidenites haven't really made any changes.

    The “Greens” are perhaps the most powerful one-party group in the Democratic coalition, in terms of intellectual strength as well as financial impact. So they are the Deep Green State that never sleeps.

    On March 21st, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), headed by Gary Gensler, voted to mandate publicly traded corporations determine and publish their CO2 emissions in addition to their “risks” that these emissions are believed to pose to the company. Evidently, it's a mouse rule that is designed to) demonstrate virtue, b) offer “Greens” media-friendly ammunition, and c) provide trial lawyers with easy cases to bring shareholder lawsuits worth billions of dollars.

    The climate-related activism of shareholders is growing because wealthy green groups are using their money-making power to derail carbon-energy production. And, as Breitbart News' John Carney revealed earlier this week, this kind of fiscal sabotage, which is all legal, and of course endorsed by the best thinkers at Yale Law School, is working. This means that big American banks are avoiding investing into American energy. Therefore, even as Biden is speaking about energy reform, investment is moving in the opposite direction.

    This is the plan that was pushed by another by the name of Sarah Bloom Raskin. Remember her? In January, she was chosen by the administration to be the second in position at the Federal Reserve System, which would have given her enormous control over all aspects of the banking system, which includes the energy sector. In the words of this writer, on this page and in others, Raskin was a declared proponent of applying the Fed's power to entrap oil firms. Fortunately, Raskin was blocked from confirmation by the Senate and she retracted her name on March 15 – though we've yet to hear the last from her. Because of the actions against carbon fuels taken by Gensler, along with the SEC, we can find that Raskinite philosophy is very much in line.

    The SEC's decision prompted Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) to take to the streets in a harsh letter to Gensler and later Hagerty tweeted that “Biden has destroyed our energy independence and is kowtowing to the far-left extreme of his party, all to the detriment of our economy.” In fact, Hagerty, who is researching this position, wrote a similar letter to a different Deep Statist in league with the “Greens”, Scott Nathan, head of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC):

    “I call on DFC to put forth a coordinated effort to support investments that will allow the fossil fuel sector to supply inexpensive, reliable, secure, and ecologically responsible energy to the world without having to force them into the hands of enemies….”

    In reality, as long as Democrats have control of Congress, Republicans such as Hagerty aren't able to influence organizations like the SEC or the DFC. For the time being, it's interesting to note the determination of the inside-the-Beltway greens to go on with the same green routine while pretending Russia is a distant topic.

    It's no surprise that these D.C. “Greens” have plenty of outside assistance. For example, in a reaction to the White House announcement on March 25 that it had finished arrangements to supply more than 15 billion cubic meters of liquid natural gas (LNG) to the Europe European Union, the New York Times — the newspaper that every top Democrat across the nation reads–was worried about the fact that the agreement “locks Europe into the gas habit for longer.” A second “Green” said to that the Times they felt this LNG deal “makes no sense.” It doesn't make sense, but that is because the problem for “Greens” isn't the fact it that the West is funding the Russians in their assault on Mariupol and other cities, but the fact that some iceberg is melting.

    Yes, in the MSM enthusiasm to tackle climate change issues remains as strong as ever. A journalist wrote on the March 21st:

    “The Washington Post is my destination to report on one of journalism's most challenging and important stories: the energy change. Changes in climate are no longer just a news story. It's THE story.”

    Did you catch the line of thinking? It's THE main story. Therefore, don't think about Russia and Ukraine or China and Taiwan the criminal predators who take their victims in the streets of America, or anything else. Be concerned about the sea levels in 2100.

    Even media outlets supposed to focus on the current crisis in Ukraine occasionally have a nebulous green agenda. An example, War on the Rocks, a show that claims to focus on military issues, allowed green zealots to sneak into the AOC-style authoritarian system:

    “Western governments are now given the possibility of implementing clear and logical conservation strategies. Not only are the mandatory conservation measures required to mitigate the negative effects of the global energy crisis, but they create economic, environmental, and strategic advantages. The government could consider the possibility of, for instance, obligatory speed limits, car-free weekends, mandatory work-from home, or public transport that is incentivized, and reduced lighting at night, rolling-outages, as well as rationing private transport and mandatory limits on indoor temperatures. Conserving energy helps keep prices low, enhances security in energy use, and lowers emission levels.”

    These greens will make us believe there is an “opportunity” to implement “decisive” policies. (As an aside, has anyone noticed that “Greens” are trying to be tougher on normal Americans as opposed to any other person?)

    Meanwhile, Liberal think-tanks are typically as committed to the green dogma. For instance, here is the suggestion of a report on March 1 by Tax Policy Center. Tax Policy Center, a collaboration between both the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, both blue chip (very green) organizations: “Policymakers could embrace higher oil prices as the necessary cost of both containing Russia's aggression and protecting the environment.” In the end, the report stated that policymakers should consider the next step to inflict additional pain on consumers: “Focusing on the longer term, they could design a plan to gradually increase taxes on motor fuels to reflect their full environmental cost and help speed electrification of the vehicle fleet.”

    In this type of intellectual hothouse, it's no surprise that Democratic politicians continue to support, and even play, with the “Greens”. For example, Michigan's attorney general, Dana Nessel, is continuing to fight, suing to stop their energy pipeline.

    Certain Democratic politicians, who are watching the midterm elections in 2022 and the upcoming elections, are noticing the dangers of excessive greenery. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney from New York, who is the chairman of the Democrats' House campaign arm, has admitted that the gas costs can be “a real problem.”

    It's funny, Democrats are coming up with a plan that, in their own terms, is shockingly ridiculous: They would like to mail rebate checks to people of all ages to pay for gas.

    Let's make it clear: Democratic policies made gas prices go up because of the reduction in supply. Of course, Democrats don't want to take any action to reduce the availability of fuel, but they wish to help people by giving more (borrowed) money into their pockets. This in turn will increase the demand and create upward tension on prices. However, Dems believe that consumers will see the rebate check immediately and not notice price increases in the future. Are Americans truly so stupid that they are able to be manipulated in this manner? Democrats believe so.

    Talking of money — this time, big bucks–the Democrats are taking it out of the “Greens”. On March 14th, Biden held his first public event since he became president. According to The Washington Post, the event was targeted at “Democrats focused on climate and environmental issues.” The big cats received what they paid for: In the beginning of his speech, the president declared that the climate crisis “It is the existential threat to humanity. And it's not hyperbole.”

    Green donors love hearing the “e” word, existential, since it can entice them to feel good about the decision they've made, and attaching global importance to their Tesla even though real threats to their lives abound.

    We're beginning to understand the situation better the way it is: all those eco-flooding private jets that the presidential climate representative John Kerry uses, but who would like to see climate change as a top priority on Biden's agenda. That's why Putin Shmutin,–let's build windmills! (But far from Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, or any other fancy areas.)

    In reality, on the day Biden held his fundraising event, one month after Russians attacked Ukraine, a whopping 89 House Democrats sent a letter to Biden and urged him to get back on the green path, beginning with 555-billion worth of “climate investments” left over from Build Back Better. Incredibly, and not at all surprising, the letter does not make mention of Ukraine or Russia or the rising energy costs. Actually Biden's fiscal year 2023 budget, which was released on March 28, was packed with some much green pork that even vegans will be delighted.

    On March 31, House Democrats blocked a Republican “all of the above” energy bill for an unprecedented fourth time. Secretary Granholm, who spoke briefly about drilling for more oil — appeared on MSNBC to persuade liberals that her talking about drilling was just a an interim tactic. The real objective is always to shift towards green energy. According to Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), “Ditching fossil fuels makes even more sense now.” (And If you have the Tesla and solar panels, perhaps it's the case.)

    As we can see, Democrats declare that they wish to assist American consumers with electricity, and they say they'd like to aid Ukraine. But at the exact same time, when they oppose the expansion of American power production, they're also helping Russia. They're the most enthusiastic to collaborate with the greens, their media mentors, as well being their funders for campaigns and others who are Great Resetters. This is how it's going: Greens first, America second. (And in the case of poor Ukraine, it's between the polar bears and the greens.)

    One more point: Keep an eye out for Sarah Bloom Raskin. The day she resigned from Fed examination, Biden said of her, “I am grateful for Sarah's service to our country and for her willingness to serve again, and I look forward to her future contributions to our country.”

    I emphasized that because you'll see her again. Her mission of removing our jobs, and possibly helping us avoid rogue CO2 molecules — isn't even close to being complete.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here