Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?
Wall Street Journal
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
Caracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region.
"At the United Nations climate conference in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, the U.S. agreed to pay environmental reparations to developing countries. Days later it emerged that the Biden administration would issue a new license to Chevron to resume operations in joint ventures with Venezuela’s oil company, PdVSA.
The U.S. government thinks you’re a fool, dear reader. And not only because it waited until Americans were en route to grandma’s house for Thanksgiving to let news slip of a deal to increase heavy-crude output from joint ventures controlled by a dictatorship allied with Iran. Or that it expects you to believe that Venezuela is considering a return to free elections in exchange." Read More
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-dir … 1669579238
Here is a very good article on Biden's latest sell-out of America.
Hopefully, some here will be interested in reading what Biden is currently doing. So much slips through the cracks with media protection. However, some media are just not willing to hide the big stuff on the "Big guy" any longer.
Becoming dependent on rouge nations for oil seems as if we are flowing in the EU's footsteps. And look at where those footsteps have now led them... Is this really the "New World order we should be accepting? I repeat --- This president is tearing apart America, and many are unable to even recognize the damage that has been done and will be done.
ThoughtsWell I would say that the nation's natural resources should be nationalized. How else would you expect to control them? If American oil producers don't want to do what's in the best interest for America then yes obviously we're depending on whoever. Doesn't seem much of any way around it. Seems that some want to use morality as a means of determining some of our global interactions but not in others. Ukraine is a great example. Do we do what's best for our country, regardless of morality? Or not? It's tough to fly the morality flag in terms of Venezuela when many far right are advocating for the complete cut off of funds to help Ukraine.
I'd say it's the American oil companies that are selling out America. Never really understood why we let the country's natural resources fall into the hands of profiteers who's only concern is their bottom line. As long as we are dependent on oil we will be victims of these companies. I'm sort of sick of the victim ideology at this point. Oil has always been a dirty game controlled by corrupt countries and people. It's just a problem now when President Biden is at the helm?
Virtually all of the oil producing nations are "rogue" nations and we've been dealing with them for a very long time. But you feel that now is the time we need to apply some moral principles to it? I honestly see President Biden's decision as a prime example of America First. Do Americans care more about what's happening in Venezuela or lower gas prices?First one may want to consider, America's Oil and gas resources are privately owned, not by governments as in some other parts of the world. We have free enterprise, and Government has no right to dictate to privately owned companies. These companies have shareholders that they are required to look out for. These companies are about employing citizens, making money, and staying solvent. This has been a preferred
ideology known as capitalism. The US has done well under capitalism.
We are the richest or some say the second richest nations in the world. We have a wonderful system that offers our citizens the right to own private businesses and thrive from enterprise.
" As long as we are dependent on oil we will be victims of these companies."
Trump proved we could be energy independent using a majority of American energy sources. We had lower energy costs across the board. The world oil market reached all-time lows in regard to costs. We have a man in the WH that came in and destroyed what Trump provided, and is now begging rogue nations for oil. We have not cut back on what we use and are paying more for offshore oil, depleting our reserves.
He is sneaking around backdoors even with Iran, easing sanctions, and most likely eventually purchasing oil from this terrorist nation.
The bottom line is hypocrisy... Biden has America now at the mercy of foreign nations for oil. We have no way of regulating how dirty the oil is produced and are in no respect using less oil and natural gas in America We are just depending on nations that have high rates of portion, and we are paying top dollar for dirty products.
Trump put America first in regard to providing energy. We have the best regulations for the production of oil, and we continue to work on better cleaner ways to bring energy to the market. We live on one planet, one atmosphere, I trust America to produce and supply energy, and work for a cleaner planet.
The oil companies worked with Trump, they won't cut off their noses to please Biden. Biden borders on " state-controlled energy" The oil industry is one of our biggest industries. It helps keep our nation rich, providing the cleanest energy, and millions of high-paying jobs.
It is foolish to think we can get rid of our biggest industries and survive as a nation.
Not only is the USA the world’s biggest oil producer, it’s also the world’s biggest oil consumer. But the USA consumes far more oil than it produces; so what do you expect?
If you want to continue to consume such vast quantities of oil, rather than transition to Renewable Energy you don’t have much choice other than make such deals.
The top 10 ‘Oil Producers’ - Percentage of World Share of Global Production of Oil:
1. USA = 20%
2. Saudi Arabia = 12%
3. Russia = 11%
4. Canada = 6%
5. China = 5%
6. Iraq = 4%
7. UAE = 4%
8. Brazil = 4%
9. Iran = 3%
10. Kuwait = 3%
The top 10 ‘Oil Consumers’ – Percentage of World Share of Global Consumption of Oil, and yearly gallons of consumption per capita (per person):
1. USA = 20.3% - 934.3 gallons of oil per person per year.
2. China = 13.2% - 138.7 gallons of oil per person per year.
3. India = 4.6% - 51.3 gallons of oil per person per year.
4. Japan = 4.1% - 481.5 gallons of oil per person per year.
5. Russia = 3.7% - 383.2 gallons of oil per person per year.
6. Saudi Arabia = 3.4% - 1,560.2 gallons of oil per person per year.
7. Brazil = 3.1% = 221.9 - gallons of oil per person per year.
8. South Korea = 2.7% - 783.4% gallons of oil per person per year.
9. Canada = 2.6% - 1,047.6 gallons of oil per person per year.
10. Germany = 2.5% - 444.5 gallons of oil per person per year.
Only Saudi Arabia and Canada uses more oil per person than the USA; EU countries e.g. Germany, uses less than half per person than the USA.Thank you for the information. It makes me wonder what the numbers would be on the EU nations if one considers land-mass, and population. Yes, breaking down counties make it look as if most are doing very well
with the tons of CO2 they use. However, it gets very ugly numbers when calculated as a mass continent. For instance take Germany which has a population 4 times smaller than the US --- Germany, 759 tons of CO2.I’m not quite sure I understand your comparison with the USA and Germany for CO2 emissions; because Germany’s CO2 emissions is only 9.44 tons of CO2 emissions per person (per capita) per year; whereas the USA CO2 emissions is 15.52 tons of CO2 emissions per person per year e.g. the USA produces over a third (39%) more pollution per person (per capita) than Germany.
Yeah, “breaking down counties make it look as if most are doing very well with the tons of CO2 they use.” If you just quote volumes per country, which is why I also included ‘per capita’ (per person) in the above table for ‘oil consumption’; it gives a more direct comparison.
Nevertheless, if you want to make a direct comparison with the EU and USA then:
• USA (population 331.9 million) consumes 19,780,000 barrels of oil per day; which is 21.75 barrels of oil per person per year.
• EU (population 447 million) consumes 15,000,000 barrels of oil per day; which is 12.25 barrels of oil per person per year.
• UK (67.33 million) consumes 1,118,000 barrels of oil per day; which is 8 barrels of oil per person per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … onsumption
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-c … y-country/
The USA consumes over 43% more oil per person than the EU, and 63% more than the UK per person.
Also, the EU's population is about a third (30%) larger than the USA, yet the USA (a smaller country than the EU) consumes around 25% more oil than the EU.My point was land mass, and population on that mass. If one considers Europe and breaks it down more or less considers countries as states as we have in the US. I would think we compare somewhat equally in CO2 emissions.
The point I was offering in this thread was that the US is now looking to become more dependent on other nations for oil when logically we do not need to. As we work toward cleaner energy, it seems the wiser thing to do is rely on our own fossil fuels than have foreign nations calling the shots.
If one truly thinks about the situation, the US could also deplete drilling in other nations due to the fact they would not be selling the same amounts if the US pulls away from sales. I don't think it wise to become dependent on other nations for energy. Look at the mess one is seeing at this point in Europe, due to being so dependent on foreign nations for energy sources.
It is obvious that the US has passed a couple of huge bills to speed up going green here in America. I feel as we get more energy efficient we need to depend on our own source of energy.I don’t think land mass is so relevant; population size is far more relevant.
• USA land mass = 9.834 million Km² (3.797 million square miles):
• China land mass = 9.597 million km² (3.705 square miles)
• EU land mass = 4.423 million Km² (1.7 million square miles)
1. USA & China has a similar land mass.
2. USA land mass is about double the land mass of the EU.
• China CO2 emissions = 10.43 billion tons per year; 7.38 tons per person per year.
• USA CO2 emissions = 5 billion tons per year; 15.52 tons per person per year.
• EU CO2 emission = 2.7 billion tons per year; 6.1 tons per person per year.
The EU’s CO2 emissions per person per year in 1990 was 8.5 tons, but has steadily declined, and is now down to 6.1 tons per person per year and falling by the year.
Global CO2 emission = 46.8 billion tons per year.
• China population = 1.412 billion.
• EU population = 0.447 billion.
• USA population = 0.332 billion.
CHINA
• China’s land mass is almost identical to the USA.
• China’s population is 4.35 times larger than the USA.
• China’s CO2 emissions are double that of the USA.
• China’s CO2 emissions per person is half that of the USA.
So, we have China, the same size as the USA, with a population 4.35 times larger than the USA; yet in spite of a population over 4 times larger than the USA they only produce double the USA’s CO2 emissions.
EU
• EU’s land mass is half that of the USA.
• EU’s population is a third larger than the USA.
• EU’s CO2 emissions are half that of the USA.
• EU’s CO2 emissions per person are about 2 ½ times less than the USA.
So, although the EU land mass is half that of the USA, with a population about a third larger than the USA, the EU’s CO2 emissions (as a country) is half that of the USA, and as individuals CO2 emissions per person in the EU is about 2.5 time less than the USA.
So however you look at it I can’t see how you can claim that the USA’s CO2 emissions are equal to the EU’s.
Yeah, the other points you make in your comments above seem sound enough; except in spite of the fact that the USA is now (in recent years, and currently) producing far more oil that it has in the past, there is still not enough oil to satisfy demand; which is why you need to import some of your oil – and I doubt there could be little done to change that. I assume oil production in the USA is near capacity anyway?
It’s a different story in the UK:
The Conservative Government shut-down our coal mining industry in the 1980s for political reasons, in spite of the fact that there are huge coal reserves left underground; at a time when the UK was heavily dependent on coal for generating electricity. In 2011 46% of the UK’s electricity came from burning coal; by 2012 this was reduced to 39%; in 2019 it was just 5%; it’s now less than 1% and the Government is closing the last coal-fired power station in 2024 (bought forward one year, as it was originally due to close in 2025).
In the UK, in spite of the fact that there are huge oil and gas reserves underground in mainland Britain, which can only be extracted by fracking; the Scottish Government banned fracking in 2015, and the UK Government banned fracking in 2019.
Yep, Europe is in a bit of a mess at the moment because of its over dependents on Russia for Energy; given the current war in Ukraine. In hindsight, it stems largely from Germany’s error of judgment when they closed half of their nuclear power stations (8 in total) in 2011 following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan that year; and made up the difference by importing natural gas from Russia.
The remaining half (9 in total) of Germany’s nuclear power stations were destined to be shut down this year (2022); but due to the war in Ukraine, that decision has now been reversed.
Yeah, the EU is in a mess at the moment, because it was too dependent on Russia for Energy; but it is coping with the situation quite well, considering e.g. Germany managed to build up sufficient gas reserves over the summer months to see it through winter, and the UK is currently exporting 10% of the electricity we generate to France.
But the EU and UK are now halfway towards being almost fully self-sufficient on non-fossil fuel energy; and by 2035 the UK will be almost fully powered by Renewable and Green Energy.
Well, I do hope the USA does pass those huge bills to speed up the USA going green, and I hope the bills are enacted upon fully and without delay, and meaningfully; for all our sakes e.g. the USA is about 10 years behind the EU and China in its transition towards a cleaner future, so there is a lot of catching up to do - and time is running out.Land mass is very relevant. I have lived in Europe and it is very similar to here in Brazil since many people live in villages and have their markets close to them. In the US, everything is far from where you live. (Yes, there is a cultural problem too as people will drive even if the store is only a short distance. It is usually not close though. Stores are usually many kilometers away and many people drive everywhere. Many people do not have public transportation available, and there is more of a cultural stigma in the US about using public transportation, except the big cities like NY.)
So comparing Germany or Frances oil use with that of the US makes no sense. You can not use per capita numbers to argue this.So basically, you are talking about transportation?
The Basic Stats (total CO2 emissions from transportation, including road, rail and aviation):-
• USA = 37% of total CO2 emission in the USA is from transportation.
• EU = 28% of total CO2 emission in the EU is from transportation.
• UK = 27% of total CO2 emission in the UK is from transportation.
• China = 11% of total CO2 emission in China is from transportation e.g. most of their CO2 emissions is from industry.
1. The UK is a fraction of the size of the EU, yet its CO2 emissions from transportation are almost identical to the EU.
2. China’s land mass is almost identical to the USA, yet its CO2 emissions from transportation is less than a third of the USA.
Size isn’t that major factor, it’s how the transportation is used that is the greater factor; for example:-
Public transport (which uses far less fuel per passenger) is used far more across Europe, including the EU & UK than in the USA, for example:-
• 10% of people get to work by rail.
• 10% walk.
• 7% use the bus
• 4% work from home, and
• 1% cycle to work.
Also, in the UK:-
• 23% of all trips in the UK are for leisure purposes.
• 19% is for shopping.
• 12% for education.
It’s not just public transport that is more commonly used in Europe, but the fact that increasingly all public transport is rapidly becoming greener across Europe e.g. using less fossil fuels, such as:-
1. China was the first country to develop the green-hydrogen train; and currently Germany and the UK are also developing the green-hydrogen train (the only three countries in the world to be doing so). Green hydrogen being where Renewable Energy is used to convert sea water into hydrogen and oxygen, and when used as a fuel the only by-product of hydrogen is water.
HydroFLEX: The UK's first Hydrogen train: https://youtu.be/geATz4pdCSg
2. The sale of 100% electric cars is booming across Europe and in the UK as we move ever closer to completely banning fossil fuel cars. Over 50 countries around the world have planned to ban fossil fuel cars, some not until 2050, but others like the UK to introduce the ban in 2030 (8 years from now); Norway being the most aggressive, who plan to make the ban in 2025.
3. Virtually all local government vehicles across Britain, such as rubbish (trash) and recycling Lorries etc. are now non fossil fuel e.g. either electric or green hydrogen powered.
4. All London black cab taxis are now 100% electric.
5. All busses in most major cities across Britain are now powered by green gas, predominantly green hydrogen in the north and in Scotland e.g. Scotland being a world leader in developing green hydrogen technology. In Bristol all our local buses are now field by green gas made from Bristol sewage and domestic food waste.
Bristol biomethane gas-powered bus refuelling station opens: https://youtu.be/QV4VEprPfos
Although a lot more needs to be done, Europe is being innovative in transition transportation away from fossil fuel to clean (green) energy.
Yeah, I get the impression that America has developed a culture that is dependent on the car; even to go shopping – and that has little to do with land mass size. When I was a child, I lived in the countryside (a rural community, where the nearest town (shopping centre) was a bus ride away); but in our village, as is common in any village in Britain, we had our local pub, village shop and village post office; all within a short walking distance. So even living in a remote village, we didn’t need a car.
That’s the great thing about living in Britain, it doesn’t matter where you live there is always a local shop within less than five minutes walking distance – in fact where I live, in the suburbs of Bristol we have two local shops within just a few minutes walking distance.
Per capita is the best measure because using population size or land mass just doesn’t give any indication of how much CO2 each individual is responsible for (as an average); whereas per capita, you can make direct comparison regardless to population size or land mass, and then focus on the issues such as transportation and how much Renewable Energy is being generated etc., which are meaningful in these discussions.
I think you might have put your finger on an important issue when you said, in the USA “Many people do not have public transportation available, and there is more of a cultural stigma in the US about using public transportation, except the big cities like NY”. For example, in the UK, there are over 4,000 trains serving 2,552 train stations, many of the train stations stopping at remote communities in small towns and villages scattered across Britain – So I can travel from Bristol virtually anywhere in Britain, even to remote villages, almost exclusively by train.
Berney Arms - Not The Least Used Station in Norfolk: https://youtu.be/dzDLHHAXYCY
And rail travel in Britain is not just restricted to Britain; I can travel by train from Bristol to anywhere in Europe.
Eurostar London to Paris Train Service: https://youtu.be/FF2xDuV2VrgComparing China is also impossible. I have never lived there (thank God) but I do know that over 90% of the population lives on the east coast. Yes, the country is large but most of it the west is barren.
https://www.unicef.cn/en/figure-13-popu … vince-2017
So I still have to disagree on the per capita issue. Even though the Chinese only produce twice as much pollution as the US (with a larger population) they do not get around as much. The territory in which you live does matter.Not to the extent that you're suggesting.
In the UK 21.3% of the population live in rural areas, in the USA its only 14% e.g. a higher percentage of Americans live in urban areas than British people.
People do not travel between States in the USA to get to work or shop any more than Europeans travel between member EU states to get to work or shop; and Europeans frequently travel to different member States for their holidays (vacations).
The size of the country you live in has little to do with how far people are willing to travel to get to work, school or shop; most people want to live close to such communities. That’s why in the UK shops, Offices, schools and other facilities are always built to be close to where people live, so that no one living in a city has far to travel; and it’s why the UK has an integrated public transport system so that anyone living in a city or town don’t have to use a car to get to work, school or shops.
I’ve noted on American films the ‘convey’ of ‘school buses’; presumably because schools are not built close to where people live? In the UK school buses is a rarity because most people live within walking distance of a school; just as most people live within walking distance of local food shops, and bus stops; whereas American urban communities are designed and built to accommodate the car, not the pedestrian.
A city is a city, it doesn’t matter how big or small the country is in which that city is situated, it’s still a city e.g. London is comparable to New York in size and population.
• New York City = 472 square miles, with a population of 8.8 million.
• London = 606 square miles, with a population of 8.8 million.
London land mass is 22% bigger than New York City, and both cities have an almost identical size population; yet it’s a lot easier to get around London than it is getting around New York City by public transport.
It’s your prerogative to disagree on ‘per capita’ being a sensible yard sticks for comparisons; although it is widely used as an acceptable comparison tools across a wide range of subject matters.
For land mass to make any real difference in respect to transportation CO2 emissions between the USA and EU the gap between transportation CO2 emissions between the USA and EU would in the first instance need to be double, because the land mass of the EU is half that of the USA, and secondly multiplied by 3 because transportation only accounts for about a third of the total CO2 emissions in the USA e.g. 2.5 x 3 = 7.5: meaning that the USA’s transport CO2 emissions would need to be 7.5 times greater than the EU’s as a percentage of their respective total CO2 emissions: And it’s not, it’s only about a third greater – and that’s mainly due to the American culture, and the design of their cities that promote the private car rather than public transport; and has nothing to do with the land mass of the USA being double that of the land mass of the EU.
Your argument of their being a correlation between land mass and the level of transport related CO2 emissions falls down when you compare the EU to the UK e.g. the EU has a far larger land mass than the UK, yet the transport CO2 emissions for the UK and EU are almost identical, and the CO2 emissions per capita (per person) in the EU and UK are almost identical, in spite of the land mass of the EU being much larger than the land mass of the UK.Well, I tried to explain to you that it is impossible to compare the US and Europe because even though the European population is larger it is not spread out like in the US. Even the numbers on people in rural areas are ridiculous, as in the US even people in suburban areas have to drive long distances to work and shop.
Even stating that things on the continent are like the UK is ridiculous because as I stated earlier it is just like it is here in Brazil. Houses are smaller, people have fewer square meters of yard space, and it is common for people to live close together and have stores within walking distance. That is not the case in the US. You may not agree with it but it is the truth.
It is your preorgative to ignore those facts and continue to believe that per capita consumption is correct; that view does not take into account reality.I think that you are missing the point that the USA being size the size as the EU does not account for the fact that CO2 emission in the USA is double; CO2 emissions from transport is only a little over a third of the total CO2 emissions in the USA (37%), and over a quarter of CO2 emissions in the EU (28%), just a difference of 9% between the two nations – not double.
Besides, it’s not the extra distance Americans have to travel (adding to CO2 emissions) it’s the fact that Americans choose to use roads in preference to rail and that the USA is far behind the EU in making transport (public, commercial and private) greener.
Europe has a far more sophisticated and modern rail network than the USA e.g. carrying far more passengers and goods (at fast speed), taking traffic off the roads. Plus Europe is at an advanced stage of eradicating CO2 emissions from the rail network; for example:
• 38% of the UK’s rail network is now electrified, and as of 31st March 2022 71% of all passenger trains are 100% electric, with just 18% of trains on the network being diesel.
• By 2040, in the UK all the remaining diesel trains will be replaced be either electric or green hydrogen trains.
Europe, including the EU and UK are at a far more advanced stage of building the infrastructure necessary to support 100% electric cars on the roads; with many counties in Europe to ban fossil fuel cars in the near future e.g. all new fossil fuel car will be banned in the UK by 2030 (just 8 years from now).
Virtually all public vehicles e.g. buses in the UK are now using green renewable energy. How far advanced is the USA in making their buses run on clean energy?
The biggest reason that the USA CO2 emission are double that of the EU and UK is because in the EU and UK less than half of our electricity is now generated by burning fossil fuels; whereas in the USA Renewable Energy only makes up a small percentage of their ‘Energy Mix’, as most of the electricity in the USA is still generated from fossil fuels.
As a demonstration; I’ve just done a screen dump of the UK’s National Grid Live website, updated at 6:10am today (image below, with 2n image zoomed in to clearly show the critical figures).
As you can see, this morning in the UK:-
• Only 21.7% of our electricity in the UK is being generated from fossil fuels.
• 43% of the UK’s electricity is currently coming from wind-power.
Also, currently, on the Import and Export side:-
The UK is currently exporting 3.5% of its electricity to France.
The UK is currently importing electricity from the countries, as follows:-
• 1.6% from Belgium
• 1% from the Republic of Ireland
• 1.8% from the Netherlands
• 5% (hydropower) from Norway
I am not sure if you are missing the point or just being obstinate and unable to accept that things are different than tiny little England. Those statistics from Europe mean absolutely nothing compared to a wide open space with houses far apart. There was a common saying when America was founded: "If I can see smoke from my neighbors chimney it is time to move west." Unlike Europe, where people have been building houses in villages and living in tiny communities for a long time. (Unlike China and unlike Brazil.)
I thought that you would appreciate knowing where Savvy´s point of view is coming from, even if you do not agree with it. Instead you are just qouting more statistics on why things are different in Europe. I guess you are not interested in learning why others have different viewpoints.
I am fully aware that things are big in America; there’s the old ‘wartime’ saying in England from when America final joined the 2nd world war (two years late) and Americans were sent to England to join in the fighting “Over Sized, Over Sexed, and Over Here”.
I know that Americans live in big house and run big ‘fuel guzzling’ cars. But that doesn’t excuse America for dragging its feet in transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy:
• You don’t see a full scale upgrading of the American National Grid, to turn it into a ‘Smart Grid’ to accommodate the complexities of Renewable Energy.
• You don’t see a full-scale building of the infrastructure in America to accommodate electric cars.
• You don’t see a full-scale building of the infrastructure in America to transition public transport (buses) to green energy.
• You don’t see any full scale upgrading of the American old and outdated railway network (with trains traveling half the speed of European trains) to run on electric or green hydrogen rather than diesel.
Typical High Speed European Passenger Train, travelling at 250kmh (155mph): https://youtu.be/aG3211IfNpk
And most important, you don’t see any concerted effort in America to roll-out Renewable Energy.
It’s not just “tiny little England” that’s rolling out Renewable Energy at pace (speed), it’s the EU as a whole; the EU is not a tiny little country, the EU is half the size of the USA, with a population 50% bigger than the USA – yet what “tiny little England” is achieving in transitioning away from fossil fuels, the EU is also achieving. Even China, with a much bigger population than the USA has rolled out far more ‘Renewable Energy” than the USA e.g. the ‘Three Gorges Dam’, and the fact that have the world’s windfarms and a third of the world’s solar farms are situated in China.
• Even 10 years the UK was installing new wind turbines at pace (speed) – 100 wind turbines installed in 100 days back in 2012: https://youtu.be/igN4jpRx1oI
• Unlike the oil companies in the USA; the British oil companies are investing heavily in Renewable Energy in the UK:
1. https://youtu.be/OVbU4hPzzqI
2. https://youtu.be/nst2RGtgzfk
The 2nd video above is 5 years old, since then Shell Oil has installed electric charge points in all their petrol stations (gas stations). And BP Oil is also installing electric charge points across Britain.
Shell Oil is also investing heavily in offshore wind farms around Britain.
America is finally passing a couple of Bills that may change all that, but that remains to be seen; but if the Bills are a game changer, it’s a little late because Europe has been transitioning away from fossil fuels for over 10 years, and America has hardly started down that path.We don't have an "American grid" to update. Power lines and generation plants (outside of hydro) are privately owned.
Same for the infrastructure for electric cars; it is all privately owned.
Many, if not most, of the buses services are also privately owned.
Rail lines are privately owned.
Wind Turbines are privately owned.
So...all of these things you chastise America for are privately owned, and government has no business building them. Not even in "upgrading" them. This appears to be a big difference in the two countries, where you expect private companies to suffer the losses (and there will be losses, big ones) in the upgrades you demand.
What do you mean by “Becoming dependent on rouge nations for oil seems as if we are flowing in the EU's footsteps. And look at where those footsteps have now led them...”
I guess I should ask where does the EU get the majority of its oil, and natural gas?
Under Trump, the US was headed toward almost using all energy sources from America. Yes, before Trump, and now once again we are dependent on foreign oil. However, I would prefer that we use our own resources at this point while we work into using more environmental options.
I just paid a gas bill that is 65% more than it was under Trump. I see no point in Biden's logic to turn to other nations for oil. Or would I be satisfied with paying higher prices than we have ever needed to pay while working our way to cleaner energy? This may appear a bit like a spoiled child, but a child that uses lots of common sense.
Where does the US get most of its oil 2022?
Here are the 10 countries providing the most U.S. oil imports:
Canada - 1,584,269.
Mexico - 259,496.
Russia - 245,194.
Saudi Arabia - 156,875.
Colombia - 74,185.
Ecuador - 61,303.
Iraq - 57,277.
Brazil - 52,229.
We can now add Venezuela, I will let you decide which could be considered rogue Nations. That would be in the eye of the beholder.
I have a home in Mexico and live there 6 months out of the year. I can safely tell you Mexico is very corrupt.We never stopped importing foreign oil under Mr Trump. Our country consumes more oil than its own producers can pump and it isn't always of the right variety. Plus, our corporations here in America turn the spigots on and off at will to give shareholders bigger dividends. As a result we will always be dependent on foreign oil. I suppose some could say we are a gluttonous nation.
Forbes has an interesting and succinct take on the idea of energy Independence
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 … has-grown/"We never stopped importing foreign oil under Mr Trump."
True, but which were larger? Imports or exports?
If we import from Canada, exporting the same amount back into Canada at a different location, can we actually claim we imported anything at all, or did we just shift things around to take advantage of geography and location?I provide stats. Facts are just harder to take than a media spin.
Thanks for your feedback and comments wilderness to my comments made further up in this forum.
It might interest you to know that in the UK the ‘National Grid’ and the rest of the energy sector are all privately owned; and have been since the Conservative Government privatised it in 1989.
Also, the infrastructure for electric cars is all privately owned, as are the buses and trains (except for in London); and all windfarms are also all privately owned in the UK.
It also might interest you to know that in Europe (including the UK) that building windfarms, and other Renewable Energy is big business attracting a lot of private investment because it has become a profitable venture, even without Government subsidies, which were scrapped in 2019 because Renewable Energy became cheaper in Europe than fossil fuels in 2016.
A little bit more detail on each point:
NATIONAL GRID
In the UK the National Grid buys electricity from the energy producers at wholesale market prices, and they buy the cheapest form of electricity first, which currently is wind power, and only buy coal as a last result as it’s the most expensive form of electricity in the UK.
The National Grid then sells that electricity to the Utility Companies (who supply the electricity to the homes); who in turn compete with each other to sell the electricity on to domestic (and business) users at ‘retail prices’ e.g. as a home owner I shop around for the Utility Company who’s offering the best (cheapest) deal on electricity.
Each country in Europe has its own National Grid, and over the past 10 years all those National Grids have been linked together to create a ‘Pan-European’ Grid, allowing each National Grid to trade electricity with each other.
All companies in the Energy Sector, including the National Grid, are there to make a profit; although in the last two years, initially due to the pandemic and now because of the war in Ukraine the world wholesale price of natural gas has sky rocketed, dramatically pushing up price of electricity and gas for heating homes.
In response the UK Government put a price cap on what Utility Companies could charge home owners for electricity and gas; which meant that Utility Companies were paying more for the energy than they were allowed to sell it for – consequently last winter 31 of the 55 Utility Companies went bankrupt.
So this winter, to avoid the same mistake, the UK Government, although keeping a price cap in place so that people can better afford to pay their energy bills, the Government has agreed to pay the Utility Companies the difference between the price they have to pay for the energy and the capped price, so that Utility Companies don’t go bankrupt this year.
In conjunction with this the British oil/gas companies e.g. SHELL and BP, have been profiteering from the world shortage of natural gas, charging premium prices for their gas to the National Grid, and in the process making record profits. Therefore, last month, the UK Conservative Government, after a lot of pressure, finally decided to do a win-fall tax on the British oil/gas Companies of 35% on profits (over and above the usual taxes); with the $billions that the UK Government get from the windfall tax being used to compensate the Utility Companies who are currently struggling.
The only other change of note is that last year the UK Conservative Government decided that it will re-nationalise the National Grid in 2024, specifically so that it can be at the helm in seeing that the UK achieves its ‘legal requirement under British law’ to be carbon net zero by 2050!
SMART GRID
To transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy does require a ‘smart grid’. To make the National Grid a ‘Smart Grid’ has been a two prong approach; firstly, the National Grid itself installing all the smart technology and software to make the existing power network ‘smart’, and secondly the Utility Companies were instructed by the Government to install ‘smart meters’ in every home in Britain. So now my Utility Company automatically gets meter readings from my home once every 30 minutes; and with that data they can help the National Grid to manage a ‘Smart Grid’ successfully, without brownouts and without blackouts.
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC CARS
There is money to be made in selling electricity for charging electric cars; so many private companies have sprung to install charging points to make money, including the British Oil and Gas companies, who are securing their future by diversifying e.g. petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned from British roads in 2030, and natural gas (for heating) will be banned from British homes by 2035. So British the oil/gas companies, seeing Renewable Energy as the future (and wanting to be part of it) is installing electric charge points in all their petrol (gas) stations across Britain e.g. the oil/gas companies can make just as much profit from selling clean electricity as they can from selling oil and gas.
BUS SERVICES
Across the whole of the UK (except for London) the bus companies are all privately owned and run, and are there to make a profit.
LONDON TRANSPORT
London is the one exception, in that all public transport in London (by rail, road and river) are all owned and run by the London Local Government, as an integrated transport system; excepting taxis (the black cab), but even then the London Local Government (Transport for London) controls the taxis through ‘regulations’ and ‘licences'.
RAIL
Rail is an interesting one:
1948: The Labour (Socialist) Government Nationalised the Railways (State owned and State run), and called it ‘British Rail’
1966: The Conservative Government adopted a ‘Policy’ of prioritising road traffic over rail traffic. So in the same year the Conservative Government closed down 55% of the rail network and started on a massive ‘motorway’ building programme.
1992: The Conservative Government did a Policy ‘U-turn’ and adopted a ‘Policy’ of prioritising rail traffic (goods and services) over road traffic. So in the same year the Conservative Government cancelled its entire motorway building projects in the pipeline.
1994: The Conservative Government privatised the railways on the principle that healthy competition would bring down prices!
In privatising the railways the Conservative Government split the railway into two major components; the rail network (including train stations), and the train operators.
The Conservative Government split the various train routes into different businesses and sold franchises in the different route; the winning bidders not based just on the highest bidder but also on the feasibility and quality of service being offered in the franchise bids being made.
One amusing quirk of the franchise system is the manifestation of ‘Ghost Trains’ e.g. a legal requirement (under the franchise) by train operators to run a train on a redundant route at least once a week to keep that route alive, even though it’s not commercially viable – as explained in this video:-
Why the UK Runs Trains to Nowhere: https://youtu.be/5KiZGRA_yCE
I think if you watch the above video you will have a good laugh, and think just how crazy Britain can be at times?
2001: The Private Company running the rail network went bankrupt in 2001 and so the Labour (Socialist) Government re-nationalised the rail network.
2010: Over the past 10 years, after coming back into power, the Conservative Government, rather than re-privatising the rail network, has taken the opportunity of it being ‘Nationalised’ to fulfil the current Conservative Policy of prioritising rail traffic over road traffic. So consequently, over the past 10 years the Conservative Government have been investing heavily in rebuilding and modernising the rail network – bringing it back to its former glory of the 1960s.
2021: Rather than competition bring down prices, as the Conservative had hoped when they privatised the train operating service in 1994, the cost of rail travel has spiralled as train operators keep putting up prices above the rate of inflation to make big profits (greed).
And finally, in 2021 the Conservative, after public outcry, conceded that privatising was a failure; and consequently the Conservative Government in 2021 decided to re-nationalise the train services by not renewing the franchises when the expire in 2024; specifically so that as a State Owned business the Government can lower the cost of rail travel to cover costs, but not make a profit.
The Conservative Government is naming the new Nationalised Railway “Great British Railways”.
WIND TURBINES
All wind turbines are privately owned. Renewable Energy is big business, and very profitable, in Europe (even without subsidies, which were withdrawn in 2019 because Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in Europe in 2016).
Because it’s now a profitable venture, wind turbines in Britain is attracting a lot of investment, including heavy investment from the British oil and gas industry; and its creating a lot of jobs local communities as well as wealth for the investors.
SUMMERY
It would seem IMHO that in general, it’s not so important whether these companies are privately owned, with intent to make profit; but whether and how they are ‘Regulated’ e.g. in Europe, including the UK, Private profit making businesses are heavily ‘Regulated’; whereas in the USA its more of a Laissez-faire approach.
I know that being American your preference will be Laissez-faire; and being European my preference is for ‘Regulation’ - but perhaps that’s a different topic?"I know that being American your preference will be Laissez-faire; and being European my preference is for ‘Regulation’ - but perhaps that’s a different topic?"
That is a good point and maybe the most important factor here. People in the US and here in Brazil used to be much less willing to accept governement meddling. It seems to be getting a lot more prevailant, which is okay with some people. (You think it is great that the electricity company can monitor your use 24 hours a day and give you a detailed bill. I do not.)
Maybe that is the way we are all going to be now that the world has reached 8 billion.Yeah, I do actually “think it is great that the electricity company can monitor my use 24 hours a day and give me a detailed bill”; it’s as advantages to me as it is to the electricity company – and helps me to save money.
My electricity usage is automatically transmitted to my electricity company once every 30 minutes. The main advantage of that to me is that I can, and do, buy and use electricity cheaply when electricity plentiful and cheap e.g. in the early hours of the morning.
The electricity company that I’ve chosen to use give an 80% discount on the price of any electricity I use between 12:30am and 4:30am – so consequently we put our washing machine and dishwasher on timer to run during that period; and I’ve set our ‘wall battery’ up to top-up from the National Grid during those hours, so that in the winter months in particular (when there’s not much sunshine for our solar panels) we can use cheap electricity from our wall battery to provide us with cheap electricity through part of the day: All this is only made possible because of the smart grid allowing our meter reading to be automatically sent to our supplier every 30 minutes.I think that is as intrusive as asking every citizen to walk around with a monitoring device 24 hours a day. (Oh wait, people already do that voluntarily by carrying cell phones.) I do not want an electricity company knowing when I am awake, when I am asleep, or any other details of my personal life.
It doesn't bother me, and if it saves me money; so what!
Mobile phones (cell phones); I do have one (for emergencies), but I hardly ever use it - most of the time it's switched off sitting in our home office.
Below is a screen dump of my half hourly itemised bill for 1st June:
* 1st column shows the time.
* 2nd column show price per kWh e.g. £0.0476 ($0.06) per kWh (cheap rate) between 12:30am and 4:30pm and £0.2389 ($0.29) (standard rate) at all other times.
* 3rd column shows my consumption in each half hour slot.
* 4th column show the total price for my electricity in each half hour slot.
You'll note that with the help of our solar panels and wall battery we shifted virtually all the electricity that we used from the National Grid to the cheap period e.g. 5.53 kWh during the four-hour cheap period, and just 0.71 kWh for the other 20 hours:
So our total bill for that day was just £0.43 ($0.53).
So yes, having our meter read every 30 minutes helps us to save a lot of money on our electricity bill. The one thing not shown in this bill is how much we were paid for exporting electricity we generated from our solar panels to the National Grid, as that's done on a separate bill.
Privacy is one of your concerns, which I understand. But looking at my itemised bill below, can you tell me when we were awake or asleep or doing anything else?
No, that IS the topic. There are many methods of subsidizing companies, and I suspect you have forgotten some of them. For instance, an ev may not be subsidized, but a fossil fuel car is charged fees/taxes when the owner buys fuel. The net effect is a subsidy for the ev. My state government gets around this by forcing me to pay an extra $100 per year for registering my PHEV, to cover the taxes I would have paid for gasoline.
Governments have many, many ways of "encouraging" what they want to see done, and it nearly always comes about through the use of money. That a business does not receive a check in the mail does not mean that, relative to another business, it is not being subsidized.
Example: where I live has seen quite a furor over the purchase of power from roof top solar systems. The homeowners WERE being paid in the neighborhood of $.20, passed along to consumers. But the cost of generating electricity was less than $.10, meaning that those solar owners were being "subsidized" by the consumer (all enforced by law). Lately they are only given the cost of power generation, making their systems untenable financially by removing the requirement that consumers pay them far more than the value of their product and they are NOT happy about it.Some might say it’s nit-picking, but it is valid questions.
Of the two examples you give:-
CAR TAX
1. Currently EVs are exempt from the annual car tax fee, which is currently £165 ($200) per year; but from 2025 EVs will no longer be exempt and EV owners will have to start paying the car tax.
2. In Europe, petrol and diesel have been heavily taxed for as long as I can remember, long before EVs existed. So petrol and diesel being heavily taxed has nothing to do with the Renewable Energy Revolution.
The tax paid on petrol (gas) in the UK is a fixed amount, set at = £0.5795 per litre, which with 3.785411784 litres per USA gallon works out to £2.19 ($2.67) tax per gallon of petrol.
For decades it’s been Government Policy (regardless to which Government is in power) to make petrol expensive by putting a high tax on it to discourage people from using their cars! So American’s should count themselves lucky for having cheap petrol (gas).
Anyway, yep, you are right, EVs don’t use petrol, so therefore they don’t pay the petrol tax e.g. they pay for the cost of electricity instead; seeing its electricity which powers EVs.
3. From 2030 in the UK (just over 7 years from now) it will be illegal to buy a new petrol or diesel vehicle - so any cost difference between fossil fuel vehicles and green energy vehicles will become irrelevant, because in the not-too-distant future there'll not be fossil fuel cars around to compare with!
SOLAR PANELS
Yep, what you describe was also the case in the UK until 2019 e.g. homeowners installing solar panels used to get paid generously (above market prices) for any electricity they exported to the National Grid. It used to be called the ‘Feed-In-Tariff’.
However, as Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in Europe in 2016, the UK Government scrapped that system on the 1st April 2019.
Therefore, for the solar panels I had installed last November, I don’t get the old generous ‘Feed-In-Tariff’; I only get paid market wholesale prices for any spare electricity that I generate and export to the National Grid – which at the moment for solar energy is about 5p ($0.06) per kWh.
First I did not claim we were totally energy independent --- "Trump proved we could be energy independent using a majority of American energy sources." We came very close, in fact closer than a very long time.
By 2020 the US was importing a low since 1988... We were becoming energy independent. Trump worked diligently over his 4 years to leave the office at 32 year low for oil imports. To see facts
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … S2&f=M
When Trump took office 2016 we exported
U.S. Exports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels) 14,518
2017 - 47,184
2018 - 74,109
2019 - 109,648
2020 - 104,048
When Biden took office he quickly started adding reserves to export to the world market. Trump had the reserves topped off by the time he left office.
Numbers tell truth...
I consider us a Nation that has more than thrived to provide anyone that wants a good life can work and share in better lifestyles.
Trump did wonders by making us non-dependent on foreigners for our oil. Biden has not only got us paying more for oil, but at the mercy of other not-so-nice nations. Have a look at the EU and their almost tool dependence on foreign oil. I think anyone that hopes to live in Europeans gives it a go...Good link, so what is the "energy independence" folks are talking about?
If the article's numbers are reliable, we are still independent, or we never have been—in the last 70 years.
GAThe first thing, How are you defining energy independence? In reality, most people are using it incorrectly. A correct accounting would be to add up all of our energy production (oil, natural gas, coal, renewables) and then subtract our net energy .
Why do I say “net”? Because if we import a million barrels per day of oil, and export that as roughly a million barrels per day of finished products, it doesn’t actually impact our energy independence even though it increases our gross overall consumption.
Most people view energy independence through the lens of our oil and gas production and consumption. These two sources represent 68% of U.S. energy consumption. When they see our net exports are positive, it is viewed as “energy independence.” When they turn negative, we are once again partially dependent. (In reality, we are always partially dependent, because even when our exports exceed our imports, we are still importing oil from other countries).
Note that the idea of energy independence was the culmination of a trend that started in 2006 when U.S. net imports topped 13 million BPD. Most of that march to energy independence happened under President Obama. All President Trump (and President Obama before him) had to do was avoid driving the bus into the ditch, and they would continue to benefit from the hydraulic fracking boom that enabled all of this.
To be clear, I am not giving credit (or blame) here to President Obama or President Trump. Their policies weren’t responsible for the underlying plunge in our crude oil imports, which is the primary factor in our march to energy independence.
However, one thing President Obama did that helped oil production continue to expand under President Trump was in the energy bill he signed in late 2015. One stipulation in that bill allowed domestic producers to export their oil. President Obama signed the 2016 spending bill that allowed the export of U.S. crude for the first time in more than 40 years prior.
The Energy Information Administration tabulated U.S. energy consumption in 2019 and 2020, and determined that for both full years, counting all energy sources, we were "energy independent". Even though U.S. energy production declined by 5% in 2020, energy consumption also declined by 3% as the pandemic impacted the economy. So, our energy independence was shrinking as the pandemic unfolded. Not due to any policy.
A large drop in U.S. petroleum demand in March and April 2020 as a result of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic led to a decrease in U.S. oil production.
Have we lost "independence"? If it turns out that we did, the single largest factor in that will be that oil and natural gas production have yet to return back to pre-Covid levels. But demand has recovered, and therein lies the reason.
This is such a complicated and nuanced issue that media reduces it down to simplistic over generalized explanations that really don't you justice all of the factors involved including the history.Lots of fun Google info here. Just wondering how I paid so much less for gas and my utilities under Trump. The stats I offered is a bottom-line buy-and-sell fact, and the very bottom line is I am paying so much more under this administration. My main comment was in regard to how much the government exported, and imported. No more no less. All you spin is just that in my view spin. It always amazes me howDemaxrats can bring Obam into just about everything. He was a lackluster president in my view But to each his own.
At any point, we have once again deflected the subject away from Biden now begging for oil from rogue Venezuela. It's been reported he is heading to Mexico soon. We can only guess he wanted them to increase pumping. He is literally turning to anyone
he can beg for oil.Well if Google info equals facts then I'm all for it. There's no way of leaving President Obama out of the conversation as he is the one who allowed exportation of oil to resume. If your definition of energy Independence relies on exports then he's the one that made that happen and that's just a fact.
"Energy independence” on my opinion is a political slogan, not an economic or technical concept with a clear definition. It's used by politicians to imply that a country is insulated from global energy markets and that is clearly not the case.
If a country produces all of the energy that it consumes, does not participate in international trade in energy, does not import energy-intensive products and does not send energy-related, then I would consider it energy independent. I don’t think any country meets that definition.
Oil is internationally traded, with prices set by global oil supply and demand conditions. So, even if the US is a net exporter of oil, prices paid domestically will always reflect supply and demand conditions abroad. Again these are just the facts and it's not really a Democrat or Republican issue but please continue to try and make it one. You're ignoring absolutely everything in terms of history and the global market in favor of one man's two-year tenure in the White House.
To get to the point of energy independence in the spirit I believe many are thinking, where our energy prices are unaffected by supply and demand conditions abroad , it will require having less dependence on energy coming from internationally traded energy commodities. This doesn't create the exciting tension and fighting between Democrats and Republicans but it really is just as simple as that. Folks can go on their way being bamboozled though. People are programmed not to see the facts just party,.And yet you still have crickets on Biden looking for oil in rogue nations.
Haven't we always been dealing with these nations? Literally all of the Nations who produce oil are so-called rogue Nations and we've been dealing with them throughout history. Why the morality now? Will the same morality apply across other situations? Like continuing aid Ukraine? The freedom caucus is promising cutting off all aid in assistance for Ukraine. Is that moral? I'm all for morality but let's spread it evenly. If we're all about America first and not solving the rest of the world's problems then why should we care what's happening in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia? As long as we continue to consume fossil fuels in a gluttonous manner we will be dealing with these nations. The fact that we are buying and consuming energy that is controlled globally is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Neither party has control or sway over the global market. No matter what politicians try and make you believe. When are we going to stop trying to make it so??
I was referring to the fact that under Trump we had no shortage of oil, we were importing historically low amounts of oil, and exporting historically more amounts of oil, as the stats I offered in one of my posts. Trump did not roam around and ask other countries to pump more OIL and we had no need to deplete our oil reserves to historical amounts. This conversation was all about Biden now looking to Venezuela to supply the US with oil.
You diverted away from the point of my comment. High gas prices, and high heating/cooling costs.
My point, we have a president, that has made enemies of the entire oil industry. It appears now, in my view he is becoming a true embarrassment on the world stage begging rogue countries to pump more oil. Thus far he has been unsuccessful. It will be interesting to see if Venezuela keeps to providing Joe with oil." I was referring to the fact that under Trump we had no shortage of oil"
That didn't have anything to do with him or his policies though. Different times, different circumstances. Again, I think you're ignoring the global nature of the oil industry. You're leaving out so many factors that a president has no control over regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. It's an oversimplification.
Again, maybe there's a little greed going on here? We are exporting record amounts while we are facing shortages?? As far as the world stage goes, we are the number one producer of oil in the world so I don't feel we need to have any embarrassment other than the fact that we let our oil companies stab American citizens in the back.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ify%20wall
USA oil production is far higher over the last 6 years, and is still higher now, than it has ever been before.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … S2&f=M
In spite of the fact that USA oil production is far higher these days than ever before, the reason the USA is so dependent on imported oil is the simple fact that you are using too much oil e.g. oil consumption in the USA far outstrips USA oil production: See link below-
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/
In answer to your question “where does the EU get the majority of its oil and natural gas?”
42% of it is produced internally e.g. the EU imports 58% of its oil, natural gas and coal of which:-
• 67% = oil.
• 27% = natural gas.
• 5% = coal.
Of that 58% the percentage of imports by country prior to 2020 e.g. prior to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine:
EU OIL IMPORTS
1. 29% from Russia
2. 9% from the USA
3. 8% from Norway
4. 7% from Saudi Arabia
5. 7% from UK
6. 6% from Kazakhstan
7. 6% from Nigeria
EU NATURAL GAS IMPORTS
1. 43% from Russia
2. 21% from Norway
3. 8% from Algeria
4. 5% from Qatar
EU COAL IMPORTS
1. 54% from Russia
2. 16% from USA
3. 14% from Australia
Most of the natural gas imports to the EU from Russia were to Germany e.g. about 50% of Germany’s import of natural gas came from Russia. However, due to the war in Ukraine that is rapidly changing e.g. the EU (Germany) is now severing its dependency on Russia, which has exasperated the world shortage of natural gas, pushing the price of natural gas on the world market sky high. Also, the high price, and market volatility, of fossil fuels is accelerating the EU’s push to transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy at an ever-increasing pace.
The reason you’ve just paid a gas bill that’s 65% higher is because of the current world shortage of natural gas, as the EU scrabbles to secure non-Russian sources of natural gas on the world’s open market: The higher price of gas is affecting us all alike in the Western World.
Yeah, I can understand your wish not to pay higher prices while you work towards cleaner energy; but the fact is clean energy (Renewable Energy) is actually now cheaper than fossil fuels (since 2016) in two-thirds of the world, including the EU & UK; but because the USA has failed to invest seriously in the transition away from fossil fuels, you do face ever increasing energy prices for a long time to come – the longer you leave it, the more expensive it will become to make the transition.
Dirty is the key word Sharlee and I can't believe that we have to put up with this for a minimum of two more years!
I am in GA right now and Herschel Walker is all the rage, but I am in rural GA. The real numbers are in and around Atlanta, which will vote (D) they will show up for Warnock in the upcoming runoff.
The big cities are killing us, they don't know it or they don't care or enough have been brainwashed to buy the load of crap that the Dems keep selling. Whatever the case, something must change. I overheard an elderly gentleman talking to some kids yesterday. He was trying to get through to them, pointing out that you can't keep doing the same things and expect there to be different results!? He was shaking his head, as I am doing now!As I saw in last months elections here in Brazil, Biden chooses to be on the side that is against the US and for communist China. I was not surprised at all to read about this deal, but did notice that he waited until after the mid-term elections to mention it.
I am sure you are right...about droves!
So put your bells on, because it is all about anybody but conservatives for you, screw the country, whatever!
Related Discussions
- 18
Biden Continues To Destroy U.S. Energy Independence.
by Sharlee 15 months ago
"On top of the OPEC+ production cuts, Saudi Arabia announced it would reduce crude oil production by an additional 1 million barrels per day (b/d) for July. These additional voluntary production cuts were extended several times, and Saudi Arabia announced on September 5 that it would extend...
- 52
Tracking Donald Trump's Promises Kept and Promises Broken
by Scott Belford 7 days ago
Donald Trump, in order to get elected, promised a whole lot of things. This forum is to discuss whether he was able to our not. Here is a short list of Promises we can follow:Here are his Day One Promises (that would be Jan 21, 2025, I believe):Immigration and Border Security: Trump will...
- 112
True or false: America has improved under Biden/Harris.
by Kathryn L Hill 10 days ago
What are the the improvements we want to see going forward. Of course, Kamala says she is her own person and will implement her own agenda.What will that agenda be? She has stated she wants to bring down grocery prices and help new home owners pay for their down payments, but government has pretty...
- 5
The Ongoing Strain of High Living Costs on American Families
by Sharlee 5 weeks ago
Joe May Be Leaving the White House, But We’re Stuck with the High Costs He’s Leaving Behind.The high cost of living over the past few years has significantly impacted American families, leading to financial strain for many. Key factors include rising housing costs, increased grocery prices, gas...
- 22
Lies about Biden's health is scandal of epic proportions
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
This could be the worst political scandal of the decade."CNN's Scott Jennings criticized the White House for hiding President Biden's health and age issues from the public in a segment on Thursday. A Wall Street Journal report from Thursday that includes interviews with nearly 50 people,...
- 26
President Donald Trump is Time's Person of the Year
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
Nobody deserves being made Time's Person of the Year more than President Donald Trump."For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction...