Biden Talks Tough About NATO, but His Energy Policies Tell Different Story

That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become. You can’t really have both.

President Joe Biden, host of the 75th anniversary NATO Summit in Washington that ends Thursday, last week claimed to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that he “put NATO together.”

Trying to find a charitable spin on this claim, let’s assume Biden means that he helped NATO stand stronger against Russian President Vladimir Putin in the crisis over Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Biden certainly didn’t put together NATO, founded in 1949, regardless of his recollection. In that context, it makes one wonder about the purpose and intent behind Biden’s energy policies and their implications for our NATO allies.

The president’s words imply one thing, but his actions are exactly the opposite. At this week’s NATO Summit, America’s allies should have denounced Biden’s energy policies for benefiting Russia.

For example, if we investigate the Biden administration’s policies on liquefied natural gas, we find that rather than supporting NATO against Russia, they clearly enable Russia and disadvantage our allies. Biden’s imposition this year of an export moratorium on liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has hampered U.S. companies that are trying to aid our allies by weaning them off dependence on Russian natural gas.

You can debate Biden’s words (and his faulty memory), but his policies are simply dead wrong.

First, let’s look at Biden’s disastrous pause in exports of liquefied natural gas. The Energy Department has stopped new permits for such exports to Europe and Asia, which has led to price volatility and no assurance of reliable sources for our allies to meet their energy demands.

A federal judge in Louisiana recently reversed Biden’s moratorium. That action could eventually help allow private sector companies in the U.S. to support our allies in Europe and Ukraine.

One example of note includes Ukraine and Venture Global, an American company that wants to come to the rescue by supplying Ukraine and Europe with liquefied natural gas to help them reduce their dependence on Russian gas. Biden’s continued pause had stood in the way.

The judge in Louisiana noted that the Biden administration’s suspension of LNG exports conflicts with settled law such as the Natural Gas Act, which directs the Energy Department to “ensure expeditious completion” of permit reviews.

Biden’s LNG export moratorium also violates the Administrative Procedure Act, since there never was a congressional direction that the Energy Department impose it.

All of this is a clear conflict (again) between responsible policy and the extremist green faction of Biden’s Democratic Party and his administration. That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become.

You can’t really have both. And yet, ironically, new evidence demonstrates that U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas represent a climate-conscious solution. A recent Berkeley Research Group report found that these exports result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than does natural gas supplied by competing countries, and much lower emissions compared with coal.

The second example of this dangerous conflict is Biden’s support for a Middle East pipeline owned by the Russians. Here at least the president’s position seems to be nuanced, since a greater supply of oil could help lower energy prices.

Biden’s State Department has strongly supported restarting an oil pipeline that has been offline because of a political dispute among Kurdistan, Iran, and Turkey. Unfortunately, the pipeline is 60% owned by Rosneft, an oil company that itself is owned by the Russian state.

Oh, and a point I skipped above: We shouldn’t be helping Iran or a hostile Turkey to control or influence significant energy in any way. All this defies logic.

It’s obvious that Biden wants cheaper energy. Every president does in an election year. That said, why is the State Department supporting reopening a Middle East pipeline that’s majority-owned by the Kremlin after the Biden administration canceled infrastructure projects here at home?

The administration’s priorities are entirely misplaced.

There is a path forward. It involves reinforcing American leadership in domestic energy production. Instead of playing into the hands of our adversaries (Russia, Iran, and Venezuela), the Biden administration needs to change course and open more access to American oil and gas production.

That starts by permanently ending the suspension on LNG exports, ending the moratorium of oil and gas exploration on federal lands, ending unprecedented restrictions on offshore oil and gas leasing, ceasing resistance to the Canadian Enbridge Pipeline 5, and restarting canceled pipeline projects such as Keystone XL.

America’s energy resources are the envy of the world and should be leveraged to protect our citizens and our allies.

U.S. energy exports strengthen our competitive edge against China, Russia, and other hostile regimes. They also produce high-paying jobs at home and lessen dependence on any foreign source.

If America really wants to help Ukraine and be a leader in NATO, this is a path that will be consistent, effective, and inexpensive compared with direct financial or material support.

The green energy activists will hate it, but simply put: They’re wrong.

Steven Bucci is a visiting fellow in the Phillip N. Truluck Center for Leadership Development.

Originally published by The Daily Signal. Republished with permission.

Related Topics:#HeartlandDailyNews DailySignal StevenBucci

Up Next

Federal government could balance budget and reduce tax rates with 2.3% spending reduction over two years

Don't Miss

‘It’s Going to Be Catastrophic’: Why the Next Pandemic Will Be Worse Than COVID

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 58 mins ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 58 mins ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.