If we are serious about improving the economy for the proverbial 99%, the global warming hoax needs to be exposed and the petroleum industry needs to be given the credit it is due. In the meantime, the shale revolution has been driving the economy forward. It was instrumental in U.S. oil production reaching 1.2 million barrels per day in 2014 — the largest increase in 100 years. We are discovering new sources of oil and gas much faster than we deplete known reserves. Our supplies are, for the moment, nearly inexhaustible.
This miracle was made possible by the private sector. Government planning and ‘public-private partnerships’ were putting all the money on ‘green energy’ fiascos. But the financial capital, entrepreneurial spirit, ingenuity, and grit of men like Harold Hamm, George Mitchell, Jim Henry and Bud Brigham followed their dream and made something happen that turned our whole economy around!
Perhaps just as significant, ninety-six percent of the shale revolution has occurred on private and state lands. The U.S. is the only country in the world where mineral rights can be privately owned. Federally owned property only seems available to be turned into parks, wilderness areas, or other projects of little economic benefit.
The conclusion should be obvious. The best thing government can do for the energy market is get out of it! Let those who know how to make things work do what they do best. But there are those who don’t want that to happen. With a little research it becomes obvious that many of these people do not have America’s best interests at heart.
The powerful Club of Rome and its associates want to rule the world. Working toward global government they’ve tried to unite the world against whatever can be made to sound like a crisis. After various causes such as “overpopulation” imploded, they settled on “anthropogenic (man-made) global warming” or AGW. Real or not, it fits their bill. The Club of Rome outlined the plan in their 1991 report The First Global Revolution. Its implementation was launched at the 1992 UN Earth Summit, sometimes referred to as Agenda 21. The 157 UN member nations attended and endorsed the program in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. President Bush attended and endorsed it. President Clinton endorsed it by Executive Order in 1993 and in doing so provided support without the required vote in Congress.
The late Maurice Strong, who led the 1992 Earth Summit, stated in a pre- Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class…involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning…expensive suburban housing…are not sustainable”. Thus, under the radical goals of Agenda 21 these staples of the American lifestyle became targets to be eliminated.
The stream of lies promoting global warming has become a scandal. There is no consensus, and the promoters largely appear funded by some kind of government grant. Many agencies will swear it’s real, yet their own satellite readings say it isn’t. In many states, attorneys general take legal action against those who ‘deny’ Climate Change. Come on folks, this isn’t science; it’s a religion–and a bad one at that!
Perhaps the crowning jest occurred in December of 2013 when a boatload of activists, determined to spotlight the shrinking Antarctic ice caps, got frozen into one and had to be rescued. True to form, they insisted their plight to be a direct result of the warming and meltingof the ice cap. As plausible as that sounds, it still doesn’t explain why they had to be rescued, if everything was melting.
Former Vice President Al Gore has become a champion of environmental issues. Author of two widely distributed books, the second, An Inconvenient Truth, was made into a movie shown in virtually every grammar school in the U.S. The resulting hysteria caused legislators to implement programs such as the Energy Policy Act of 2007. It imposed Renewable Fuel Standards for corn ethanol and advanced bio-fuels, providing generous subsidies to ethanol makers.
The ethanol mandate achieved none of its objectives–reducing oil imports, displacing gasoline, or improving air quality. What it really did was reduce the global food supply. Corn prices went from $2 a bushel to $8. Multiple studies now conclude the production of ethanol is a net energy loss and increases genuine pollution. Yet the Energy Policy Act of 2007 remains in force.
Have we considered what fossil fuels have really provided to us?
During the early years of the Industrial Revolution our average life expectancy went from 25 to 35 years. As living standards improved, we continued to live longer and better. Most of us expect a life expectancy in the seventies. This surge in human health and well-being has been proportional to the increased use of fossil fuels.
In the year 1800, between 80 to 90% of the United States population worked in agriculture. With the Industrial Revolution, the percentage of agriculture workers declined to 41% by 1900. Now it’s 1.5%. Within that time frame world population went from one billion to seven billion. Yet the gross world product increased by 27 fold and real income per capita has been raised at least ten fold. All this prosperity came through the burning of fossil fuels!
But, some will say, isn’t this technology destroying our world? Increased combustion has raised atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the current level of 400ppm. CO2 — the chemical compound from which plants construct their tissues — is for them the “gas of life”. The more CO2, the better they grow, requiring less water to flourish and nourish the planet.
So, people are living longer, everyone has more to eat, and the plant kingdom is happier than it was just a few years ago. We haven’t hurt the earth, we’ve made it better!
The well known agricultural scientist Craig Idso calculates the monetary value of ambient CO2 enrichment from 1961 to 2010 at $3.5 trillion per year. And he projects that the future gains in global food production resulting from higher levels of CO2 through 2050 will be $11.6 trillion. The EPA is trying to call CO2 a pollutant. Are we trying to regulate something that is actually good for us?
Of course, other combustion products are not so benign. But over the last four decades, American industries have dramatically reduced the worst of them. The most important “criteria pollutants” listed in the federal Clean Air Act have declined by 60 to 70%. Just in time for the “Shale Revolution”. So with proven technology all set and ready to go, why are we investing this money into energy that is nowhere near ready to give us what we need?