Energy
8 ways the Biden / Harris government made gasoline prices higher

From Energy Talking Points
By Alex Epstein![]() |
Any politician who supports the “net zero” agenda is working to make gasoline prices much higher
This is Part 1 of a 4 part feature where I cover 4 of the top energy issues being discussed this summer
- Every politician will claim this summer that they’re working to make gasoline prices lower, because they know that’s what voters want to hear.
But the many politicians that support “net zero by 2050” are working to make gasoline prices higher.
- For the US to become anywhere near “net zero by 2050,” gasoline use needs to be virtually eliminated.¹
- Since Americans left to their own free will choose to use a lot of gasoline, the only way for “net zero” politicians to eliminate gasoline is to make it unaffordable or illegal.
Low gasoline prices are totally incompatible with “net zero.”
- The Biden-Harris administration knows that all fossil fuels, including gasoline, need to be far more expensive for them to pursue “net zero.” That’s why the EPA set a rising “social cost of carbon” starting at $190/ton—the equivalent of adding $1.50 a gallon to gasoline prices!²
- From Day 1, President Biden has openly supported the destruction of the fossil fuel industry, from his 2019 campaign promise of “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel” to his 2021 executive order declaring that America will be “net zero emissions economy-wide” by 2050.³
- Kamala Harris has, unfortunately, been even more supportive of the “net zero” agenda and therefore higher gasoline prices. In 2020 she supported a fracking ban, which would have destroyed 60% of US oil production. And she cosponsored the fossil fuel-destroying Green New Deal.⁴
- Of course, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, like all politicians, claim to be for lower gasoline prices. But because their real priority is the “net zero” agenda, in practice they are doing everything they can to raise prices.
-
Here are 8 specific actions they’ve taken.
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #1
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by taking a “whole-of-government” approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
. This entails reducing oil investment, production, refining, and transport, all of which serves to increase gas prices.⁵
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #2
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by expanding the anti-fossil-fuel ESG divestment movement
. ESG contributed to a 50% decline in oil and gas exploration investments from 2011-2021, resulting in artificially higher prices. Biden is making it worse.The ESG movement is anti-energy, anti-development, and anti-America
·January 6, 2022ESG poses as a moral and financially savvy movement. In reality it is an immoral and financially ruinous movement that is destroying the free world’s ability to produce low-cost, reliable energy. This prevents poor countries from developing and threatens America’s security. Read full story - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #3
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices via “climate disclosure rules,”
an oil and gas investment-slashing measure that coerces companies into spouting anti-fossil-fuel propaganda and committing to anti-fossil-fuel plans—plans that will raise gas prices.The “climate disclosure” fraud
·Mar 16Congress won’t support Biden’s anti-fossil-fuel agenda. Read full story
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #4
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by issuing a moratorium on oil and gas leases on federal lands, stunting oil and gas production and investment
. When it’s harder to produce and invest in oil, gasoline gets more expensive.⁶
- Biden Gas Gouging Policy #5
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by hiking the royalty rate for new oil leases by 50%
. This is money the government gets from the industry on top of taxes. And it discourages oil investments, meaning less production meaning higher gas prices.⁷ - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #6
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by restricting oil and gas leasing on nearly 50% of Alaska’s vast petroleum reserve
. This is a crippling blow to Alaska’s oil and gas industry. Less Alaskan oil means higher gas prices.⁸ - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #7
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by threatening to stop oil and gas mergers
. Mergers, which increase efficiency, benefit domestic production and lower prices. Blocking mergers raises oil prices long-term, which means higher gas prices.Why government should leave oil and gas mergers alone
·Jun 3Myth: Oil and gas mergers are bad for America because they make oil more expensive. Read full story - Biden Gas Gouging Policy #8
Biden has worked to increase gasoline prices by cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline
. This prevented Canada from using its vast oil deposits to their full potential—meaning lower global supply and higher prices for oil and gasoline.⁹ - Joe Biden should level with the American people and make clear that his agenda is to increase gasoline prices—much like Obama’s infamous admission that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his energy plan.
Or he should apologize and embrace energy freedom.¹⁰
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Energy
Activists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy

2016 image provided by Misti Leon, left, sits with her mom, Juliana Leon. Misti Leon is suing several oil and gas companies in one of the first wrongful-death claims in the U.S. seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the changing climate.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Isaac
They twist yesterday’s weather into tomorrow’s crisis, peddle apocalyptic forecasts that fizzle, and swap “global warming” for “climate change” whenever the narrative demands. They sound the alarm on a so-called climate emergency — again and again.
Now, the Left has plunged to a new low: weaponizing the courts with a lawsuit in Washington State that marks a brazen, desperate escalation. This isn’t just legal maneuvering—it’s the exploitation of personal tragedy in service of an unpopular anti-energy climate crusade.
Consider the case at the center of a new legal circus: Juliana Leon, 65, tragically died of hyperthermia during a 100-mile drive in a car with broken air conditioning, as a brutal heat wave pushed temperatures to 108 degrees Fahrenheit.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The lawsuit leaps from this heartbreaking event to a sweeping claim: that a single hot day is the direct result of global warming.
The lawsuit preposterously links a very specific hot weather event to theorized global warming. Buckle up—their logic is about to take a wild ride.
Some activist scientists have further speculated that what may be a gradual long-term trend of slight warming thought to be both cyclical and natural, might be possibly exacerbated by the release of greenhouse gases. Some of these releases are the result of volcanic activity while some comes from human activities, including the burning of oil, natural gas and coal.
Grabbing onto that last, unproven thread, the plaintiffs have zeroed in on a handful of energy giants—BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell, and the Olympic Pipe Company—accusing them of causing Leon’s death. Apparently, these few companies are to blame for the entire planet’s climate, while other oil giants, coal companies, and the billions of consumers who actually use these fuels get a free pass.
Meanwhile, “climate journalists” in the legacy media have ignored key details that will surely surface in court. Leon made her journey in a car with no air conditioning, despite forecasts warning of dangerous heat. She was returning from a doctor’s visit, having just been cleared to eat solid food after recent bariatric surgery.
But let’s be clear: this lawsuit isn’t about truth, justice, or even common sense. It’s lawfare, plain and simple.
Environmental extremists are using the courts to hijack national energy policy, aiming to force through a radical agenda they could never pass in Congress. A courtroom win would mean higher energy prices for everyone, the potential bankruptcy of energy companies, or their takeover by the so-called green industrial complex. For the trial lawyers, these cases are gold mines, with contingency fees that could reach hundreds of millions.
This particular lawsuit was reportedly pitched to Leon’s daughter by the left-leaning Center for Climate Integrity, a group bankrolled by billionaire British national Christopher Hohn through his Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and by the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s yet another meritless claim in the endless list of climate lawsuits that are increasingly being tossed out of courts across the country.
Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge threw out a climate nuisance suit against oil producers brought by Bucks County, citing lack of jurisdiction. In New York, Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed a massive climate lawsuit by New York City, pointing out the city couldn’t claim both public awareness and deception by oil companies in the same breath.
But the Washington State case goes even further, threatening to set a dangerous precedent: if it moves forward, energy companies could face limitless liability for any weather-related injury. Worse, it would give unwarranted credibility to the idea — floated by a leftwing activist before the U.S. Senate — that energy executives could be prosecuted for homicide, a notion that Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rightly called “moonbeam, wacky theory.”
The courts must keep rejecting these absurd lawfare stunts. More importantly, America’s energy policy should be set by Congress—elected and accountable—not by a single judge in a municipal courtroom.
Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
Alberta
Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona
‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’
Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.
Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.
That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.
“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.
Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.
In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.
According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.
The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.
For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.
“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.
“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”
As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.
“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.
Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.
“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.
“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
-
Alberta8 hours ago
Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day ago
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
-
COVID-191 day ago
Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports
-
Addictions1 day ago
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Energy23 hours ago
Activists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy
-
Alberta16 hours ago
Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces