Posted on 03/31/2025 10:56:33 AM PDT by thegagline
There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions.
The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.
The report *** would have likely enraged environmentalists. The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers.
Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts.
Comer’s office told Fox News Digital that DOE repeatedly declined to provide this study to the House Oversight Committee or comply with other requests for information.
What is most concerning is that our LNG exports help reduce the dependence on Russia and would have decreased the revenues to that country to support its war in Ukraine. However, critics charge that Biden ignored the national security and economic benefits. Supporters note that we still exported a massive amount of LNG.
***
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...
Along came Al Gore and Michael Mann, championing that we would die from global warming.
The hockey stick theory that they touted was exposed as a fallacy.
Then came the ultimate hedge: climate change.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2014/01/obama-touts-natural-gas-in-speech-182137
The left intentionally makes it impossible to please them.
If there was no carbon we’d all be dead on this carbon based planet
Climate change is and has always been a political movement to gaslight the people into believing the hype.
Bet the Biden Administration was burying more than Climate Change Reports.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
“The left intentionally makes it impossible to please them.”
Absolutely true. Years ago I worked in the maintenance department at a fairly large paper mill. Our main source of steam was a coal boiler, with a couple of gas boilers as backup. At the time, gas was prohibitively expensive for the mill to depend on. If there was a problem with the coal boiler and we had to switch to gas, it was all hands on deck to repair that coal boiler. Along with our own maintenance department, we would bring in dozens of outside millwrights to assist, as the mill was running in the red until we could get back to coal.
Well, the cost of gas has come way down (I think mostly due to fracking), and they don’t ever burn coal nowadays. So of course now gas is bad. The only things the left will support is anything known to not be adequate to support society. Which tells me what their real goal is.
For the past few years, 80% of all the power we consume comes from solar, with only 20% having to be pulled from the grid (mostly during the 4 coldest months we have in Alabama). That's for an all-electric house, and charging our EV (we drove 16K local/home charged miles last year, not counting charging done away from home). It'd be cost prohibitive to try to be 100% energy independent. But by being 80% energy self-reliant, my budget has a financial cushion to the political shock energy policies of the warmageddon cult left. No natural gas bill (I converted my 2 nat gas appliances to electric 3 years ago). Almost no gasoline costs (what little we drive the gas pickup). So I no longer sweat much when the left wants to ban this type of energy, or reduce that type of energy, etc. knowing the result is that they're just trying to jack up the price of those energy sources.
I worked in a power plant in NYC for years and have seen something similar to what you have described. The plant was dual fuel and back in the early 2000’s, we’d run on #6 bunker oil and only use natural gas on hot summer days where we’d run a mixture of burners to provide maximum reliability in case of interruption of one type of fuel.
Somewhere around 2007 or 2008, the script flipped. After that, it was very rare to burn oil with the exception of the dual fuel max reliability summer days plus extremely cold winter days when there was not enough natural gas for the city’s demands.
We also had to convert from cheap #6 bunker oil to #2 diesel-like fuel oil due to city and state regulations, but at least we didn’t have to pay for the conversion. Once the plant said it was cost prohibitive to convert, 80% of the cost of conversion was guaranteed so that our plant could remain dual fuel for max reliability. (Management just inflated the cost of the new oil facility so that the “80%” given to us actually covered 100% of it.) But they are coming after natural gas plants now too.
The climate cult is richer and more powerful than the Watchtower and just as bad at predicting the end of the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.