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

From Heartland Daily News
By Steven Bucci of the Daily Signal
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.
Energy
Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
After accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
At a recent energy conference in Houston, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s “irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” He added that “Natural gas is responsible for 43 per cent of U.S. electricity production,” and beyond the obvious scale and cost problems, there’s “simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas.”
In other words, as a federal election looms, once again the United States is diverging from Canada when it comes to energy policy.
Indeed, wind power is particularly unattractive to Wright because of its “incredibly high prices,” “incredibly huge investment” and “large footprint on the local communities,” which make it unattractive to people living nearby. Globally, Wright observes, “Natural gas currently supplies 25 per cent of raw energy globally, before it is converted into electricity or some other use. Wind and solar only supply about 3 per cent.”
And he’s right. Renewables are likely unable, physically or economically, to replace natural gas power production to meet current or future needs for affordable, abundant and reliable energy.
In a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, for example, we observed that meeting Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 using only wind power (with natural gas discouraged under current Canadian climate policies) would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré wind farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. This would also require more than one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of Calgary.
Solar power did not fare much better. According to the study, to meet Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 with solar-power generation would require the construction of 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a two-year construction time per facility, this adds up to 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
And at what cost? While proponents often claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore the costs of maintaining backup power to counter the unreliability of wind and solar power generation. A recent study published in Energy, a peer-reviewed energy and engineering journal, found that—after accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
The outlook for Canada’s switch to renewables is also dire. TD Bank estimated that replacing existing gas generators with renewables (such as solar and wind) in Ontario could increase average electricity costs by 20 per cent by 2035 (compared to 2021 costs). In Alberta, electricity prices would increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to a scenario without changes.
Under Canada’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime, natural gas is heavily disfavoured as a potential fuel for electricity production. The Trudeau government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) would begin curtailing the use of natural gas beginning in 2035, leading largely to a cessation of natural gas power generation by 2050. Under CER and Ottawa’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emission framework, Canada will be wedded to a quixotic mission to displace affordable reliable natural gas power-generation with expensive unreliable renewables that are likely unable to meet expected future electricity demand.
With a federal election looming, Canada’s policymakers should pay attention to new U.S. energy policy on natural gas, and pull back from our headlong rush into renewable power. To avoid calamity, the next federal government should scrap the Trudeau-era CER and reconsider the entire “net-zero 2050” agenda.
Energy
Trump asserts energy dominance, set to meet oil titans amid trade war

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump is taking decisive action to strengthen America’s energy sector, set to meet with top oil executives next week at the White House. The 47th president, who has prioritized energy independence and economic growth, is working to expand domestic oil and gas production while countering foreign market pressures and trade challenges. Industry leaders recognize Trump’s commitment to unleashing U.S. energy dominance, a stark contrast to the regulatory stranglehold of the Biden years.
Key Details:
-
Trump’s upcoming meeting with oil and gas leaders will be his first major sit-down with the industry since his second inauguration, reinforcing his commitment to energy independence.
-
The president’s policies have already slashed regulations and boosted U.S. energy production, but industry leaders seek further collaboration to ensure continued growth.
-
While some executives have voiced concerns over crude price fluctuations, Trump remains focused on lowering energy costs for American consumers while keeping the industry thriving.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump has long championed American energy as the backbone of economic prosperity and national security. Unlike his predecessor, who waged a war on fossil fuels in favor of radical climate policies, Trump has embraced U.S. oil and gas, calling it “liquid gold” and positioning it as a cornerstone of his administration’s economic agenda.
The meeting, set to include top oil executives and members of the American Petroleum Institute, will focus on advancing U.S. energy production. Trump’s newly formed National Energy Dominance Council, led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, will also play a key role in shaping policy discussions.
Industry leaders like Harold Hamm of Continental Resources and Kelcy Warren of Energy Transfer LP, both of whom backed Trump’s 2024 campaign, recognize the president’s unwavering support for the oil and gas sector. Trump’s administration has already implemented critical reforms to streamline permitting, cut bureaucratic red tape, and expand drilling opportunities—moves that starkly contrast with the Biden administration’s hostility toward domestic production.
Despite global economic factors influencing oil prices—such as increased OPEC+ output and weak Chinese demand—Trump’s policies have laid the groundwork for sustained industry success. While some executives argue that crude prices must remain above $80 per barrel for optimal production, Trump’s focus remains on ensuring affordable energy for American families and businesses.
Trade policy has also been a point of discussion, with some in the industry concerned about Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are critical for drilling operations. However, Trump has consistently prioritized fair trade and American manufacturing, refusing to allow foreign competitors to undermine U.S. industry. Unlike the Biden administration, which caved to globalist interests, Trump is leveraging tariffs as a tool to strengthen domestic production.
Bethany Williams, spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, emphasized Trump’s impact: “President Trump’s energy agenda has set our nation on a path toward energy dominance. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss how American oil and natural gas are driving economic growth, strengthening our national security, and supporting consumers with the president and his team.”
As Trump continues to roll back Biden-era climate mandates and prioritize U.S. energy independence, his administration is making clear that American oil and gas will once again lead the global market. With the full backing of industry leaders, Trump is proving that energy dominance isn’t just a slogan—it’s a reality under his leadership.
-
National2 days ago
Mark Carney’s new chief of staff was caught lying about Emergencies Act use
-
International2 days ago
‘Democracy is now a farce’: How the EU-NATO axis abolished freedom in Romania
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Fatal Mistake? Disaffected Millennials, Not Trump, Are Canada’s Biggest Challenge
-
Business1 day ago
Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau
-
National2 days ago
Two Liberal ministers suggest Mark Carney will call election after being sworn in as PM
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta power outages and higher costs on the way with new federal electricity regulations, AESO says
-
International2 days ago
United Nations Judge Convicted For Having A Slave
-
International2 days ago
EU leaders silent as Romania cancels anti-globalist presidential candidate