Angry Old Many Demands Oil Companies Explain Lack Of Gasoline

By William Teach June 15, 2022 – 10:30 am

The response should be interesting, since it involves a combination of shutting down exploration by Biden and the Left, shutting down refineries by Democrats, sanctions on Russia (which Biden worked hard to bait into invading Ukraine) and China’s coronavirus creating instabilities

Biden demands oil companies explain lack of gasoline as prices rise

U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday demanded oil companies explain why they aren’t putting more gasoline on the market, sharply escalating his rhetoric against industry as he faces pressure over rising prices.

Biden wrote to executives from Marathon Petroleum Corp, Valero Energy Corp, and Exxon Mobil Corp and complained they had cut back on oil refining to pad their profits, according to a copy of the letter seen by Reuters.

“At a time of war, refinery profit margins well above normal being passed directly onto American families are not acceptable,” Biden wrote, adding the lack of refining was driving gas prices up faster than oil prices.

“The lack of refining capacity – and resulting unprecedented refinery profit margins – are blunting the impact of the historic actions my Administration has taken to address Vladimir Putin’s Price Hike and are driving up costs for consumers.”

The letter is also being sent to Phillips 66, Chevron Corp, BP and Shell, a White House official, who declined to be identified, told Reuters.

Wait, what was that part about refineries? Joe has an answer right there. The eco-extremists and climate nuts have worked hard to shut down refineries over the past 30+ years. There have been 2 refineries closed down in the past two years, as of April 22nd, 2022. A December 2021 article says 5 were closed down. Even Biden’s own EIA department notes this. Democrats won’t allow new ones to be built.

Biden has been intensifying attacks against oil companies in recent days as U.S. gas prices raced to record highs above $5 per gallon this past weekend and ahead of the summertime driving season.

Rising gas prices have helped drive unexpectedly persistent consumer price inflation and voter anger ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections where Biden’s Democratic Party is defending its control of Congress.

Does he think this will work? Blaming Putin didn’t work, nor any of his other Blamestorming.

Gas prices too high? It’s all part of Biden’s plan to eliminate fossil fuels

Gas prices have doubled since Biden took office. J.P. Morgan analysts predict $6 a gallon by August. And experts warn this crisis will continue even after Biden’s term ends because he’s dismantling fossil fuel production.

When Biden was running for president, he promised to shut down oil producers: “No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.” He pledged to put the country on “an irreversible” path toward “doing away with” fossil fuels.

On Day One as president, Biden shut down the Keystone pipeline, sending a message of no new pipelines anywhere, period.

In the months that followed, he stopped all sales of leases to drill on federal lands or offshore, meaning zero new leases allowing oil to be brought out of the ground.

And in September, House Democrats introduced legislation to stop banks from lending money or investing capital for new or expanded fossil fuel production. That legislation hasn’t passed, but it sent a clear message. The oil industry is being shut down.

These were signals to the industry, investors, and the stock market, which helped drive up costs along with all the other reasons. At the root, the current gas spike is China’s fault for screwing around with coronaviruses and letting them get out, but, once it started, Biden ignored the issue and actually worked to make it worse.

Read: Angry Old Many Demands Oil Companies Explain Lack Of Gasoline »

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Too Much Plant Food Likely To Slow Plant Growth Or Something

By William Teach June 15, 2022 – 7:15 am

You know, because a tiny increase in the global temperatures since 1850 are super bad

Climate Change Likely to Slow Plant Growth in Northern Hemisphere

Plants are a highly effective carbon sink. Globally, forests absorb about 7.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, about 1.5 times the annual emissions of the United States.

Since the 1980s, climate warming, prompted by rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, has caused an increase in plant productivity in the Northern Hemisphere outside the tropics.

But new research published May 30 in Nature Climate Change estimates that summer warming in this region will begin to have the opposite effect within the next half-century, causing photosynthesis—or plant productivity—to decline. The global land carbon sink will likely take a hit as a result, the authors write.

The researchers found that generally in the Northern Hemisphere, warmer temperatures will mean less summer plant productivity by 2070 for most regions below 60° N—the approximate latitude of Oslo, Norway, and Anchorage, Alaska. Plant productivity in Arctic areas, however, will continue rising as the temperature increases.

Doom!

Scientists used two different ways of estimating the effects of rising summer temperatures on productivity: models that represent photosynthesis based on a variety of environmental factors, and climate models combined with extrapolations from historical observations of the thermal tolerance of wild plants. Anping Chen, a study coauthor and ecologist at Colorado State University, explains in an email that researchers rely more on the first method because it takes into account factors like elevated CO2 levels, changes in precipitation, and the acclimation of plants to warming.

Using eight Earth system models, the study found that under intermediate projected emissions conditions, about 48 percent of vegetated land in the Northern Hemisphere will experience a decline in plant productivity due to warming by 2060, rising to 78 percent by the end of this century.

And there they are, the computer models, typical doom prognostications. So, just wondering, if this turns out to be wrong, who is held responsible? Oh, right, these are far in the future, so, no one will remember.

Read: Too Much Plant Food Likely To Slow Plant Growth Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Wake County Gave $20 Million In COVID Cash: How Was It Spent?

By William Teach June 15, 2022 – 7:00 am

And was it spent properly? Oh, wait, that’s not a question that is being asked. Nor “what does this really have to do with COVID relief?” Some questions that could certainly be asked with state and federal money across the nation

Wake County gave $20 million in COVID-19 relief funds to nonprofits. Who got the most?

Thava Mahadevan runs a small farm where he grows food for poor and homeless people with mental challenges.

He can feed more of them now, because Wake County is giving his group — XDS Inc. — $150,000 in COVID-19 relief funds.

“And our goal now is to expand what we have learned here as part of our Heat and Eat meal program into Wake County,” Mahadevan said.

Kelly Nivison wasn’t so lucky.

She asked the county for just $2,000 for her orchestral group, the Raleigh Camerata, but her request was denied.

“It was a little bit of a letdown,” she said.

They were among the winners and the losers in the county’s “Elevate Wake” program that handed out $20 million in federal relief funds to nonprofits who had to apply for it.

While that’s admirable, what do either have to do with COVID relief? Looks more just like handing out taxpayer cash to private groups because they can. Out of the 4 pages of recipients, very few seem to have anything to do with COVID.

Raleigh-Wake County Dental Society Community Dental Health Program Inc. (DBA Wake Smiles) received $70k for a dental clinic renovation. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc. (Raleigh Alumnae Chapter) received $35K for the Southeast Raleigh Community Health Truck Rodeo. Southeastern Wake Adult Day Center got $371K for Advancing Treasured Thyme, whatever the hell that is. The African American Cultural Festival of Raleigh and Wake County got $400K for African American Cultural Festival Capacity Building and Sustainability PRoject. What do any of these have to do with COVID? New Bethel Christian Church got $200K for Food Pantry Expansion. Let them spend their own money.

The Boys and Girls Club of Wake County is getting $2 million to move its Brentwood Club to Fox Road in Raleigh, and will upgrade its HVAC systems and purchase new buses.

Dorothea Dix Park is getting $1 million to repair its walkways and make its restrooms ADA-compliant.

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

Roylance says there are safeguards to make sure the money is spent properly, and Dillon says the county partnered with the Triangle Council of Governments to help distribute and monitor the funds.

“So when an organization gets the funding, they have to come back and report on everything that that is agreed to, and there’ll be individual contracts with each agency or each nonprofit that ensures that the public funds are spent for the purposes that they they applied for,” Dillon said.

Did ABC11 here in Raleigh bother asking to see records about monitoring to make sure the money is being used as intended? Not that it has much to do with COVID.

Read: Wake County Gave $20 Million In COVID Cash: How Was It Spent? »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, NC News | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Smithfield Foods Pulls Out Of California Over Pork Law

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 3:00 pm

I said this would happen. Here’s the backstory (via Green Jihad)

At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules. Unless the courts intervene or the state temporarily allows non-compliant meat to be sold in the state, California will lose almost all of its pork supply, much of which comes from Iowa, and pork producers will face higher costs to regain a key market.

The courts did not intervene, particularly over the notion that other states must comply with the California rules to sell products

But, it won’t jump by 60%, it would go to zero in most cases, as producers would simply avoid selling pork products in California. No bacon, sausage, barbecue, pork dumplings, or anything else that would be affected. That’s simply the easiest thing to do, is it not? Some products will be sold, and the prices will certainly jump way more than 60%. Is that realistic? Because that’s what the law says. Even if they want to sell it, the law says they can’t.

And now

Smithfield Foods to shutter California meat-packing plant

unintended consequencesMeat-packing giant Smithfield Foods said Friday it will close its only California plant next year, citing the escalating cost of doing business in the state.

The Farmer John meat-packing plant in Vernon, an industrial suburb south of Los Angeles, will shut down in February, with its 1,800 employees receiving severance and job placement support along with bonuses for those who choose to stay on the job until the closure, said Jim Monroe, vice president of corporate affairs.

Some workers, who on average earn about $21 per hour, also will have opportunities to relocate to other facilities owned by the Virginia-based Smithfield Foods Inc.

The Vernon plant slaughters pigs and packages products such as ham and bacon. Some operations will be moved to other facilities in the Midwest, but the overall reduction in processing capacity is prompting Smithfield to reduce its sow herd in Utah. The company also said it is exploring ways to exit its farms in California and Arizona.

Reducing/moving operations in those other states is a direct reflection on the California law, because they just won’t need that much product for California now.

Monroe said operating costs in California are much higher than in other areas of the country, including taxes and the price of water, electricity and natural gas.

“Our utility costs in California are 3 1/2 times higher per head than our other locations where they do the same type of work,” he said.

The ABC piece mostly ignores Proposition 12, but, that is the primary driver of what Smithfield Foods is doing, jacking up the price of operations and goods. But, hey, this is what you wanted, Californians. Suck it up, no complaining. And you know they won’t be the first.

Read: Surprise: Smithfield Foods Pulls Out Of California Over Pork Law »

Posted in Food and Drink, Global Warming, Liberal World | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a canal dug to reduce carbon pollution related flooding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on the left ignoring violence that benefits them.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 10:30 am

Now, why do the gun grabbers want to do that?

Don’t Add Curbs on Guns. But Repeal Liability Protections for Gun Makers and Sellers.

As a lifelong sportsman with a personal history rich with shotguns, pistols and rifles, I understand why so many of my fellow gun owners — especially the ones who have been spoon-fed fear and angst from organizations they trust — are hesitant to engage in a political discussion that began long before the actor and Second Amendment activist Charlton Heston equated guns with human dignity and liberty.

Debates about guns seem to get lost in the weeds of our decades-long disagreements, while every attempt at compromise — including the current effort in the Senate — falls short of what is desperately needed.

Does anyone believe that Todd Tanner has a personal history with firearms?

With that in mind, I’d like to offer a suggestion that may anger many of those who hear it but could, with luck, spark a fruitful discussion in the weeks and months ahead: Democrats should stop trying to institute new gun laws. They should side with Republicans and agree to curtail any further attempts to restrict gun purchases, or to outlaw guns that are currently legal.

At the same time, Republicans should work with Democrats to eliminate all liability protections for gun and ammunition manufacturers and anyone who sells guns.

Why in the hell would Republicans work with Democrats on this?

We live in the United States of America, and we should all understand that every freedom comes with a price. In this case, that price is personal responsibility. People harmed by gun violence should have the right to go to court to hold gun manufacturers and sellers legally and financially responsible. (snip)

Unfortunately, this approach won’t save every child, grandmother, parishioner and teacher from the apocryphal bad guy with a gun. As we’re seeing in Congress right now, attempts at a solution prove inadequate to the task. But it would certainly deter the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons, and it would help us shift from a culture that produces far too much pain and death toward one where guns are once again mere tools for hunters and target shooters.

The only idea here is to be able to sue gun manufacturers along with gun sellers, both stores and private transactions. Why? To drive them out of business. To stop any private citizen from selling their guns. And, if you’ll notice, Todd Tanner now adds “legally” to the Talking Point, which would hold all those who make and sell guns criminally liable when their product is used in a criminal manner. Or even accidental. Because the goal here is to eliminate firearms from the hands of private citizens. If the gun makers and sellers are out of business there will be no product. No manufacturer will want to legally sell in the U.S. The only ones getting guns will be criminals via a black market. If the gun grabbers cannot legislate guns away directly, they’ll do it indirectly.

This was the NY Times yesterday

What It Took for a Country With a Strong Gun Culture to Give Them Up

…

It’s easy to imagine his mind lingering on Australia. After a bitter fight with rural gun owners and conservative activists, Australia introduced sweeping measures to restrict gun access in the wake of a 1996 shooting that left 35 dead. The reforms were truly comprehensive in scope and included a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic shotguns, stringent licensing and permit requirements, and the introduction of compulsory safety courses for all gun owners, who were also required to provide a genuine reason for owning a firearm that could not include self-defense. The federal government also announced a gun amnesty and federal buyback that led to more than 650,000 weapons being surrendered to the police and destroyed.

It wasn’t just shotguns, but, almost all guns. Of course, only around 35% of the preported guns were turned in. But, Democrat gun grabbers, many of them who own firearms and/or are protected by people with firearms, some that the average person cannot legally own, would have a tough time legsilating them away directly, so, they can do it indirectly with the end of liability.

Read: NY Times Wants To Remove All Liability Protections On Firearms »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Is The Climate Scam Keeping You Up At Night? You Might Have Climate Crazy

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 7:00 am

Harvard Health says this is totally not a mental illness. Well, they might be right, if you consider losing your shit over what is mostly natural and becoming a cult member who refuses to practice what you preach not a mental illness

Is climate change keeping you up at night? You may have climate anxiety

A forest fire in northern California and a mile-long glacier breaking apart appear in your news feed. The stark reminders of climate change are constant, and may cause additional stress to your daily tasks. For example, in surveying your shopping cart filled with wipes, sandwich bags, and packets of baby food, you may question your choices, knowing that the plastic in those items will never break down completely. You may feel guilty about driving the short distance to the store, or you may struggle to stop worrying about how your actions will affect future generations.

What is climate anxiety?

Climate anxiety, or eco-anxiety, is distress related to worries about the effects of climate change. It is not a mental illness. Rather, it is anxiety rooted in uncertainty about the future and alerting us to the dangers of a changing climate. Climate change is a real threat, and therefore it’s normal to experience worry and fear about the consequences. Anxiety about the climate is often accompanied by feelings of grief, anger, guilt, and shame, which in turn can affect mood, behavior, and thinking.

Or, maybe it is mental illness, people buying into a doomsday cult, letting a bunch of grand high poohbahs scare the crap out of them without bothering to do any real research. Some of you might remember the doomy prognostications they put out for Y2K. It did look scary, but, if you did any research, you realized all that was necessary was a little software upgrade. Or, how about the doomy prognostications of NYC under water by 2000? That the Arctic would be ice free? All those tipping points? Peak oil? All the ones of a coming ice age? How about Maldives underwater by 2018? People bought into these without thought.

According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, more than two-thirds of Americans experience some climate anxiety. A study published by The Lancet found that 84% of children and young adults ages 16 to 25 are at least moderately worried about climate change, and 59% are very or extremely worried. This makes sense, as children and young adults will disproportionately suffer the consequences of environmental changes. A 2021 UNICEF report estimates that one billion children will be at “extremely high risk” as a result of climate change. Children and young adults are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of chronic stress, and climate anxiety may affect their risk of developing depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.

Perhaps the climate cult should stop scaring the kids, making them mental messes.

How can you help a younger person?

Climate anxiety disproportionately affects children and youth. To be an ally for a child, adolescent, or younger adult with climate anxiety, you can consider showing your support in the following ways:

  • Validate their concerns. “I hear you, and it makes sense that you are worried (or angry) about this issue.”
  • Help direct their efforts to advocacy groups. Spend time together researching organizations that they can get involved with.
  • Educate yourselves on steps you both can take to minimize your impact on the environment.
  • Support your loved one’s decisions to make changes to their lifestyle, especially changes they can witness at home.
  • Spend time in nature with your family, or consider planting flowers or trees.

How about not validating their concerns which makes it worse. Tell them to do some research to see if what they’re being told is true.

Read: Is The Climate Scam Keeping You Up At Night? You Might Have Climate Crazy »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Putin Price Hike Here Means Russia Making High Revenue From Exports

By William Teach June 14, 2022 – 6:45 am

Weren’t all those sanctions supposed to cripple Russia? Biden and his Democrat Comrades keep telling us what we’re experiencing is the Putin price hike (behind the NY Times paywall here)

Russia’s Oil Revenue Soars Despite Sanctions, Study Finds

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered global condemnation and tough sanctions aimed at denting Moscow’s war chest. Yet Russia’s revenues from fossil fuels, by far its biggest export, soared to records in the first 100 days of its war on Ukraine, driven by a windfall from oil sales amid surging prices, a new analysis shows.

Russia earned what is very likely a record 93 billion euros in revenue from exports of oil, gas and coal in the first 100 days of the country’s invasion of Ukraine, according to data analyzed by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a research organization based in Helsinki. About two-thirds of those earnings, the equivalent of about $97 billion, came from oil, and most of the remainder from natural gas.

“The current rate of revenue is unprecedented, because prices are unprecedented, and export volumes are close to their highest levels on record,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst who led the center’s research. (snip)

“We’re asking the world to do everything possible in order to cut off Putin and his war machine from all possible financing, but it’s taking much too long,” Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, said from Kyiv about President Vladimir Putin of Russia. (snip)

“You can stop importing Russian caviar and Russian vodka, and that’s good, but definitely not enough. You need to stop importing Russian oil,” he said.

So, we in the U.S. are paying for the sanctions, that mostly avoid Russia fossil fuels, that aren’t really doing much, and Russia is making money hand over fist selling to India and other countries. Good plan!

(Financial Times) In his State of the Union address days after Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine, President Joe Biden listed measures the US was taking to punish Russia in a “battle between democracy and autocracy”. Yet as the west has sought to isolate one autocrat, it has been forced to seek help from others: Saudi Arabia and its fellow absolute monarchies in the oil-rich Gulf. (snip)

To damp sky-high petrol prices ahead of US midterm elections, Biden is having to turn to a state he pledged to treat as a pariah. Washington has urged Saudi Arabia, Opec’s de facto leader, to raise production. This month, the kingdom and its allies in Opec+, which includes Russia, finally announced a modest acceleration of output.

The White House credited Saudi Arabia for “achieving this consensus among the group members”. Biden is considering visiting the kingdom. That would mean sitting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — whom US intelligence concluded had authorised the operation to “capture or kill” journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered four years ago.

The energy crisis is increasing the leverage of MBS and other Gulf leaders. Only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, another autocratic state, have the spare capacity to significantly boost oil production. Neighbouring Qatar, the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas, is meanwhile being courted by European governments and energy companies. While the world frets about energy supplies and inflation, the Gulf is enjoying a boom as the west’s reliance on its hydrocarbons only deepens.

If only there was some other solution instead of looking to Saudi Arabia.

Read: Good News: Putin Price Hike Here Means Russia Making High Revenue From Exports »

Posted in Energy, Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Very Worried That SCOTUS Ruling Could Defang The Federal Government

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 3:00 pm

In case you didn’t know, we are awaiting a Supreme Court decision on a climate crisis (scam) case. I have a feeling that it might not be a win for either side, because Congress, unfortunately, writes laws that are very broad and give Executive Office agencies wide latitude to apply them to issues they were never meant to address. Consider the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. Contraception appears nowhere in the bill. So, where did the mandate come from? No one knows. But, HHS may have used tiny language to do it, from Ocare bill or another bill. Regardless, this case has made the Statists very concerned….you know, the same people who called Donald Trump a Fascist

How SCOTUS’ upcoming climate ruling could defang Washington

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month hobbling the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in greenhouse gases — but its impact could weaken Washington’s power to oversee wide swaths of American life well beyond climate change.

The upcoming decision on the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate oversight offers the conservative justices an opportunity to undermine federal regulations on a host of issues, from drug pricing and financial regulations to net neutrality. Critics of the EPA have clamored for the high court to do just that, by declaring it unlawful for federal agencies to make “major” decisions without clear authorization from Congress.

The Supreme Court and several Republican-appointed judges have invoked the same principle repeatedly during the past year to strike down a series of Biden administration responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Liberal legal scholars worry that the EPA case could yield an aggressive version of that thinking — unraveling much of the regulatory state as it has existed since the New Deal.

That has implications for other major rules that President Joe Biden’s agencies are writing or defending in court, including wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution, insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, and even the Trump administration’s attempts to lower drug prices.

It’s one thing to take writing in a Congressional bill to make a small rule. And this is Congresses fault for failing to make legislation targeted. They too often want the Big Bill!!!!!, which leads to this garbage. Doing a massive rule is something entirely different, as that is something Congress needs to explicitly pass. Those in favor of Central Government Planning are worried that the ability of Los Federales in the Executive Branch, which is tasked with enforcing law, not making it up, will be reigned in.

Supreme Court climate case might end regulation

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming days or weeks that could curtail EPA’s ability to drive down carbon emissions at power plants.

But it could go much further than that.

Legal experts are waiting to see if the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA begins to chip away at the ability of federal agencies — all of them, not just EPA — to write and enforce regulations. It would foreshadow a power shift with profound consequences, not just for climate policy but virtually everything the executive branch does, from directing air traffic to protecting investors.

If it’s a resounding win for West Virginia it won’t stop the agencies for writing regulations, it will simply require them to write rules that are explicitly required per Congressional law. Ocare gave HHS the ability to determine what is considered full time work and which size companies are affected. It’s in the bill. Even though Congress should have determined that. What if the Trump admin had determined that Ocare only affects companies with a million employees? It would have been legitimate and authorized.

This is making the Statists very, very concerned.

Read: Warmists Are Very Worried That SCOTUS Ruling Could Defang The Federal Government »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a cabana by the sea which will soon be wiped out be extreme waves, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Rio Norte Line, with a post on food shortages.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove