Charles Payne on the economy and in particular, inflation
28 responses | 0 likes
Started by mcfarm - June 10, 2022, 1:50 p.m.
By metmike - June 10, 2022, 4:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks mcfarm!

I'm been warning that this would happen from piling up the debt and the war on fossil fuels for 15 years.

It's was always going to happen with these policies, just a matter of time. Not if........but when.

They want to blame Putin for something that was destined to happen with these policies since Obama was in office(war on fossil fuels).

                Inflation Persisting            

       Started by joj - Nov. 20, 2021, 8:46 a.m.    


                Life without petroleum-based products            

                          Started by metmike - May 21, 2022, 10:46 p.m.    

When the price of petroleum and natural gas soar higher like they have been, the cost of all those items mentioned above(that use petroleum/natural gas) also goes up.........ON TOP OF the direct cost for transportation and heating/cooling."

"The war on fossil fuels is in the early stages of killing our economy while being the biggest factor for the increase in inflation!


                Energy assistance before election time            

                            Started by wglassfo - May 25, 2022, 12:14 p.m.    


                In another show of profound cluelessness,  Biden authorizes tapping the Strategic Oil reserve                       

                Started by TimNew - Nov. 23, 2021, 10:32 a.m.    


Gas Price                                      

                Started by wglassfo - June 9, 2022, 5:41 p.m.    


                Kerry wants to push back hard on energy infrastructre.            

                            Started by TimNew - June 8, 2022, 3:50 a.m.    

By metmike - June 10, 2022, 5:17 p.m.
Like Reply

The most mind boggling element to this is that this administration is doubling down on the reason causing much of this.

Their solution is actually to attempt to  replace fossil fuels even faster.

We just need more solar and wind...........that will fix it!

That's exactly what's broken. 

If you have a leak in the dike, the solution isn't to punch more holes in the dike.

Anybody that thinks the war on fossil fuels is not the problem or is  just a small part of the problem is completely out of touch with the physical laws of energy, the dynamics of the delivery system and it being the main lifeblood to all developed economies!!!!!!

And there is no climate crisis, based on the FAKE Climate Accord that allows China and India to have enormous increases in CO2 emissions(CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere)  while the US kills its economy for a FAKE problem to save the greening planet.

Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!                                                  

By metmike - June 10, 2022, 6:30 p.m.
Like Reply

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

metmike: That was in 2008 and in the early stages of his war on fossil fuels, that has continued.

In fact, hopes that he would continue his war on fossil fuels, representing the United Nations NOT the best interest of the United States resulted in him getting the Nobel Peace Prize after he had done............. nothing even in the vicinity  worthy of getting this huge award after just months in office.

Obama Wins Nobel Prize in Part for Confronting 'Great Climatic Challenges'                

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today in part for what the award's organizers said was a "more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting."                           

The stunning decision to honor Obama just nine months into his first term caught even the White House off guard.                           

"Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning," Obama said during a Rose Garden speech.

Moments later, the president highlighted his early efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons and halt the threat of global warming -- work cited by the Nobel Prize committee that is a long way from completion.

Turning to global warming, Obama added, "We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines                                and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy."

Former Vice President Al Gore, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on global warming, called Obama's award "thrilling."


"It's extremely well deserved," Gore added during the annual Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Madison, Wis. "Much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated                                in the eyes of history as it has been by the Nobel Committee in their announcement early this morning."

But the connection between the Nobel Peace Prize and Obama's work on climate change caught many by surprise.

metmike: Most people are shocked at what's happening because of the war on fossil fuels but this has been the plan for decades and Obama helped speed things along faster than any 1 person.

By metmike - June 10, 2022, 6:37 p.m.
Like Reply

Sorry if this is going into what some would think is non trading discussing  but the facts are the facts and the politics are the reason for the current economic and energy jam we are in and the  understanding  of it MUST also include the reasons for it. ...especially the  biggest one by far.

By mcfarm - June 10, 2022, 7:34 p.m.
Like Reply

you stated the facts and they are an absolute mouth full .......we are in deep crap here and there is little urgency to respond properly

By TimNew - June 11, 2022, 6:43 a.m.
Like Reply

Mcfarm,  the problem is that the "urgency" is all directed at responding improperly.

This looks so much like Cloward-Pivens.

By metmike - June 11, 2022, 9:02 a.m.
Like Reply

Even with the stark cold realities of the war on fossil fuels hitting hard right now, they contine on the exact wrong path.

See the post by Tim on Kerry‘s latest statements. This entire administration has a plan to get rid of fossil fuels but is jaw dropping ignorant about the physics of energy density, energy reliability, energy delivery, energy production.
Completely misinformed about environmentalism and climate.

They are using blatant ignorance about the most important realm for our prosperity to go as fast as they can push things in the exact wrong direction…..using a fake save the planet from the fake climate crisis narrative to justify it while laying the blame on guys like Putin.

Clearly, they have already decided on This agenda and there is nothing that will stop them….except to get them the heck out of office ASAP.

And that’s the great thing about our democracy and elections. When you are totally incompetent you pay the price.

However, there are extremely powerful, evil global forces that share the same view as this administration when it comes to the US energy policies.

They bought Obama in 2009 with the Nobel Peace Prize… speculation. Im the opposite of a person that believes in conspiracy theories. They bought Obama!!

So the republicans WILL take control in the house and senate but 2 more years fighting this administration and the extremely powerful United Nations fake green energy policies that will cause a severe depression if allowed to continue on this course will be a challenge.

The huge money has already placed their bets on fake green energy.

Even when Trump was in office, they saw the writing on the wall and continued to see fake green energy as the future.

with that being the case, the chance of us going back to a time of great prosperity at any point for the rest of my life looks pretty dang bleak.

In 2008, when the last severe flash recession hit, in part from extremely high energy prices,  we were still tapped into cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy that helped us pull out of it.

But with half the coal plants shut down already and the rest scheduled to shut down this decade, the writing in on the wall.

Killing coal

Of all the energy sources, the a very wide margin has the most coal than any country in the world. And we are completely shutting US coal down. 

Just think about how 100% counterproductive that is.

By metmike - June 11, 2022, 9:42 a.m.
Like Reply

Keep in mind that crude (after being refined) gasoline, natural gas and  coal provides it's own battery, ready to use at any time of day/night  and no loss from storage, the complete opposite of batteries.

Solar and wind turbines provide extremely diffuse, intermittent energy that  require a massive land area that lasts around 25 years..........then you have to send them to landfills and start over. 

The amount of destruction to the earth from mining the minerals for that and filling landfills is several orders of magnitude greater than fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the REAL green energy and their CO2 is massively greening the planet in addition to the incredible advantages compared to wind and solar in almost every metric you measure for importance. 

Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!                                                  

Yeah, I know that I showed that thread earlier but Holy Cow, how is this no brainer science , energy and environmental reality not just being totally ignored but they are pretending it's the complete opposite of the overwhelming evidence and going full steam ahead with the manufactured reality which is in the early stages of destroying our economy.

By metmike - June 11, 2022, 10:07 a.m.
Like Reply

Why Intermittent Wind & Solar Will Never Amount to Serious Power Sources


metmike: The government is forcing energy investments to pick wind and solar. 

  $555 billion to fight the fake climate crisis            

                            Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.    


University released a study that says the U.S. can
“reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by
2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned
with historical spending on energy.” The 300-page
report includes several scenarios, all of which
require huge increases in wind and solar energy, as
well as a massive expansion of high-voltage trans-
mission capacity.7 One scenario necessitates cover-
ing about 228,000 square miles with renewables.
That’s an area roughly equal to the size of the state
of California and Washington

metmike: Say good bye to millions of birds and in 25 years, you have to replace can NEVER work!

By mcfarm - June 11, 2022, 10:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Clowardpivens has indeed come along way since 1966 and the public welfare system they have used has been abused to way past the goal of "overload"

By metmike - June 12, 2022, 12:28 p.m.
Like Reply
  There is actually one hope: This agenda is brought to an abrupt halt by people voting in politicians that oppose it based on its profound damage that will only get worse if they don't do that.

Yahoo: “Biden’s on the verge of losing on climate change”

Despite assuming office with what activists describe as the most ambitious climate change agenda in history, Biden has experienced a series of setbacks that threaten to leave him with little progress on the issue, showing just how hard contending with climate change can be in a chokepoint-filled federal system, such as that of the United States.

The president is facing backsliding on almost every front in his fight against climate change: His clean energy proposals are stuck in the Senate, surging oil and gas prices have even Democratic state governments cutting gasoline taxes, and the need to wean America’s European allies off Russian fossil fuels has led the administration to propose boosting gas exports. Also, a bill passed by the House of Representatives could get in the way of offshore wind energy expansion.

Meanwhile, the president’s broad power to regulate under existing laws is being constricted: One federal court ruling forced him to sell new fossil fuel leases on federal lands and waters; and the Supreme Court is on the verge of limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas causing global warming.

Climate policy wonks are hopeful that Congress will pass climate legislation before Republicans likely gain control of the body in the midterm elections, but they admit that failure would be devastating.

“Give Sen. Manchin credit for trying the bipartisan route, which is always his preference, and we’re going to hold hope that in the face of those talks petering out, that the place to go is back to the framework that’s centered on a big old package of climate and justice,” Pierce added. “I can’t imagine that Democrats are gonna go into the fall without having passed a package of significant investments on climate.”

If a climate bill doesn’t pass the Senate this year, Pierce said it would constitute “a monster failure.”

metmike: Build back better actually  is code for: "eliminate fossil fuels and start new with diffuse, unreliable, anti environmental, anti economic growth, inflationary and impossible/fairy tale projections violating the principles of energy and common sense"

By metmike - June 12, 2022, 12:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Energy Crisis Is a Taste of What the IEA Has in Store for Us


Below is what I've been saying since Biden started announcing his agenda and has followed thru with attempts to implement it.

Huge money flows being invested  for future production are being diverted AWAY from fossil fuels.


By metmike - June 12, 2022, 1:24 p.m.
Like Reply

There's a pretty good chance of reversing the endangerment finding by the EPA in the US as voters have sampled the damage from the early stages of the war on fossil fuels.

When both houses, then the White House flip to politicians that all support rational energy policies rooted in authentic environmental/climate principles it should provide the power to reverse the ludicrous Obama era agenda. 

If that happens, the legal incentive to obliterate fossil fuels will vanish and, most importantly the government will no longer put their finger on the scale to pick winners and losers in the energy industry.......rewarding bad options and discouraging good options.

By metmike - June 13, 2022, 1:44 a.m.
Like Reply

Highest price for natural gas in 14 years. Every time prices increased, even half this much the rig count soared higher so that supplies would gush out as the big investors saw incentive to make more money.

The cure for high prices is...............high prices.

Not any more with fossil fuels. The government is suppressing new supplies by disadvantaging new money investments in fossil fuels  to stifle future profits with its war on fossil fuels.

Investment moneys in this business have seen the writing on the wall, long before Biden took over(Obama made it crystal clear). There are other factors at play with regards to production/well too. 





By metmike - June 15, 2022, 1:12 a.m.
Like Reply

Hydrogen Is Unlikely Ever to Be a Viable Solution to The Energy Storage Conundrum

Here are just a few of the issues that arise in consideration of hydrogen as the way to decarbonize:


  • Cost of “green” hydrogen versus natural gas. In recent years, prior to the last few months, natural gas prices have ranged between about $2 and $6 per million BTUs in the U.S. The price spike of the past few months has taken the price of natural gas to about $9/MMBTUs. Meanwhile, according to this December 2020 piece at Seeking Alpha, the price for “green” hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water is in the range of $4 to $6 per kg, which translates, according to Seeking Alpha, to $32 to $48 per MMBTU. In other words, even with the very dramatic recent rise in the price of natural gas, it is still 3 to 5 times cheaper to obtain than “green” hydrogen. There are some who predict dramatic future price declines for “green” hydrogen, and also continued price increases for natural gas. Maybe. But with prices where they are now, or anywhere close, nobody is going to make major purchases of “green” hydrogen as the backup fuel for intermittent renewables; and without buyers, nobody will produce large amounts of the stuff.
  • How much overbuild of sun/wind generation capacity would be required to produce the “green” hydrogen? Truly breathtaking amounts of incremental solar panels and/or wind turbines would be required to make enough “green” hydrogen to become a meaningful factor in backing up a grid mainly powered by the sun and wind. The Seeking Alpha piece has calculations of how much nameplate solar panel capacity it would take to produce enough “green” hydrogen to power just one small size (288 MW) GE turbine generator. The answer is, the solar nameplate capacity to do the job would be close to ten times the capacity of the plant that would use the hydrogen: “Consider the widely deployed GE 9F.04 gas turbine, which produces 288 MW of power. With 100% hydrogen fuel, GE states that this turbine would use about 9.3 million CF or 22,400 kg of hydrogen per hour. With an 80% efficient electrolysis energy cost of 49.3 kWh/kg, producing that one hour supply of hydrogen would require 1,104 MWh of power for electrolysis. To generate the hydrogen to run the turbine for 12 hours (~ dusk to dawn) would require 12 x 1,104 MWh, or 13.2 GWh. Given a typical 20% solar capacity factor, that would require about 2.6 GW of solar nameplate capacity dedicated to generating the hydrogen to fuel this 288 MW generator overnight.” Given the tremendous losses in the process of making the hydrogen and then converting it back into electricity, it is almost impossible to conceive that this process could ever be cost competitive with just burning natural gas.
  • Making enough “green” hydrogen to power the country means electrolyzing the ocean. The ocean is effectively infinite as a source of water, but fresh water supplies are limited. If you electrolyze salt water, you get large amounts of highly toxic chlorine. There are people working on solutions to this gigantic problem, but as of now it is all in the laboratory stage. Incremental costs of getting your “green” hydrogen from the ocean are a complete wild card.
  • Hydrogen is much less energy dense than gasoline by volume. For many purposes, and particularly for the purpose of transportation fuel, it is highly relevant that hydrogen is much less dense than gasoline by volume. Even liquid hydrogen has an energy density by volume that is only one-quarter that of gasoline (8 MJ/L versus 32 MJ/L), meaning that much larger a fuel tank; and liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at the ridiculously cold temperature of -253 deg C. Alternatively, you can compress the gas, but then you are talking more like a 10 times energy density disadvantage. Either compressing the gas or converting to liquid will require large amounts of additional energy, which is an additional cost not yet figured into the calculations.
  • Hydrogen makes steel pipelines more brittle. Hydrogen is much more difficult than natural gas to transport and handle. Most existing gas pipelines are made of steel, and hydrogen has an effect on steel known as “embrittlement,” that makes the pipes develop cracks and leaks over time. Cracks and leaks can lead to explosions. Also, because of the volumetric energy density issue, existing natural gas pipelines can carry far less energy if used to carry hydrogen.
  • ++++++++++++++++++

Previous posts on this blog have cited to several competent calculations of the amount of storage needed for different jurisdictions to get through a full year with only wind and sun to generate the electricity. For the case of the entire United States, this post from January 2022 describes work of Ken Gregory, who calculates a storage requirement, based on the current level of electricity consumption, of approximately 250,000 GWH to get through a year. If you then assume as part of the decarbonization project the electrification of all currently non-electrified sectors of the economy (transportation, home heat, industry, agriculture, etc.), the storage requirement would approximately triple, to 750,000 GWH. If that storage requirement is to be met by batteries, and we price the amount of storage needed at the price of the best currently-available batteries (Tesla-type lithium ion batteries), we get an upfront capital cost in the range of hundreds of trillions of dollars. That cost alone would be a large multiple of the entire U.S. GDP, and obviously would render the entire decarbonization project impossible. In addition, lithium-ion type batteries (and all other currently-available batteries) do not have the ability to store power for months on end, as from the summer to the winter, without dissipation, and then discharge over the course of additional months. In other words, the fantasy of a fully wind/solar energy economy backed up only by batteries is doomed to quickly run into an impenetrable wall.

By metmike - June 15, 2022, 1:19 a.m.
Like Reply

Calculating The Full Costs Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar And Batteries

"For several years now, advocates of “decarbonizing” our energy system, along with promoters of wind and solar energy, have claimed that the cost of electricity from the wind and sun was dropping rapidly and either already was, or soon would be, less than the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels.  These claims are generally based on a metric called the “Levelized Cost of Energy,” which is designed to seem sophisticated to the uninitiated, but in the real world is completely misleading because it omits the largest costs of a system where most generation comes from intermittent sources.  The large omitted costs are those for storage (batteries) and transmission.  But as we now careen recklessly down the road to zero emissions, how much will these omitted costs really amount to?

A guy named Ken Gregory has recently (December 20, 2021, updated January 10, 2022) come out with a Report at a Canadian website called Friends of Science with the title “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.”  A somewhat abbreviated version of Gregory’s Report has also appeared at Watts Up With That here.  Gregory provides a tentative number for the additional storage costs that could be necessary for full electrification of the United States system, with all current fossil fuel generation replaced by wind and solar.  That number is $433 trillion.  Since the current U.S. annual GDP is about $21 trillion, you will recognize that the $433 trillion represents more than 20 times full U.S. annual GDP.  In the post I will give some reasons why Gregory may even be underestimating what the cost would ultimately prove to be."

By metmike - June 15, 2022, 4:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Wind, solar and batteries will NEVER EVEN COME close to working by themselves and ironically, switching is the most ANTI environmental, anti green, anti energy thing that we could do.

No, I don't work for the fossil fuel just an independent, objective atmospheric scientist(who is also a practicing environmentalist-unlike our fake green energy leaders)  from Indiana that bases statements on facts and physical laws.

By joj - June 16, 2022, 6:48 a.m.
Like Reply

Fed chairman Powell says the cause of inflation is supply chains and Putin's war.   Why didn't he mention the war on fossil fuel?

By mcfarm - June 16, 2022, 7:23 a.m.
Like Reply

are you kidding or just that thick. Ever notice the mountains of crime our AG is somehow missing? the mess the Commerce dept is? the total crap mess our boarder is? You can go right down the line to incompetence in every single gov  department and you wonder?

By TimNew - June 16, 2022, 7:27 a.m.
Like Reply

We can debate why he failed to mention fossil fuel,  but there is no argument that it's cost is a major factor in inflation.

What I'd like to understand is why he feels that interest rate hikes will correct inflation that is due almost entirely to supply when interest rates affect demand.

A recession will certainly end inflation, and that is about all interest rates will hasten in this scenario.

By metmike - June 16, 2022, 8:06 a.m.
Like Reply

Believe what you want and who you want, joj. im just reporting the objective evidence and facts based on indisputable physical and economic laws and applying scientific discernment entirely absent of politics.

I show all my work.

You can believe it or not.

Powell gets paid a lot of money because he’s a so called expert. Of course he is right about those factors being PART of the cause. 

I don’t get paid any money. My payment is from learning and sharing authentic truths. There’s more important things than money and the truth still matters    the most to a few of us.

I would have actually been shocked if Powell had told you anything different than he did.

“it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him Not understanding it!”

I‘ll have the source of that quote when back in the office.

By metmike - June 16, 2022, 11:27 a.m.
Like Reply

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary  depends on his not understanding it. (in regards to the Q15/70/etc) :  r/exmormon

Upton Beall Sinclair Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968) was an American writer, muckraker, political activist and the 1934 Democratic Party nominee for Governor of California who wrote nearly 100 books and other works in several genres. Sinclair's work was well known and popular in the first half of the 20th century, and he won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1943.

In 1906, Sinclair acquired particular fame for his classic muck-raking novel, The Jungle, which exposed labor and sanitary conditions in the U.S. meatpacking industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.[1] In 1919, he published The Brass Check, a muck-raking exposé of American journalism that publicized the issue of yellow journalism and the limitations of the "free press" in the United States. Four years after publication of The Brass Check, the first code of ethics for journalists was created.[2]

Time magazine called him "a man with every gift except humor and silence".[3] He is also well remembered for the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."[4] He used this line in speeches and the book about his campaign for governor as a way to explain why the editors and publishers of the major newspapers in California would not treat seriously his proposals for old age pensions and other progressive reforms.[4]

By metmike - June 16, 2022, 12:09 p.m.
Like Reply


U.S. commodity futures are trading well above where they started the year. #Energy futures have seen the largest relative gains up to this point, but yearly ag gains (#corn, wheat, #soybeans) are close to or record for the period, even with #wheat $3+ off its highs.



Maybe interesting to compare with 2008, another period of turmoil in financial markets. #Corn was a huge mover that year, up 65%+ by late June (vs +30% in 2022 as of today), and #wheat had corrected much earlier in 2008 than now. Crude #oil ended 2008 off 70% from its June peak.


metmike: 2008 was VERY different but also featured very high energy prices. The biggest difference was that the war on fossil fuels had not kicked in yet, so the old saying "the cure for high high prices" took affect and we saw production responding and gushing out with supplies because of the HUGE price incentives.

THIS TIME: The government is forcing energy investments to pick wind and solar.

  $555billion to fight the fake climate crisis            

                            Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.    

Biden has been doing everything in his power to STIFLE the incentives for increased investments in fossil fuels and the very weak response is pretty far.  His government has picked solar and wind as the energy source of the future that get the benefits, subsidies, tax breaks and so on.

The above data/evidence bears repeating because its profound.

The government is forcing energy investments to pick wind and solar.........again, Biden didn't start it but his legislation is accelerating it like never before and its like a freight train  picking up more speed and running over attempts to stop it....while he pretends that he's not doing it and pretends that he's acting to lower gas prices.

  $555billion to fight the fake climate crisis            

                            Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.    

By metmike - June 16, 2022, 12:50 p.m.
Like Reply

Stopping the war on fossil fuels, which is never going to happen, would help fix this MUCH more effectively than any other action by the government......And the Fed chairman would NEVER EVER  tell us this.

Suggesting that Powell didn't tell us this should mean anything or that we shouldn't believe fossil fuels aren't a huge part of the reason is purely picking what YOU want to believe and discarding all the crystal clear evidence here.

By metmike - June 16, 2022, 9:19 p.m.
Like Reply

Here's more and there's actually much more than this.

Biden energy policy

By metmike - June 22, 2022, 2:42 p.m.
Like Reply

The climate/energy clown show:

By metmike - June 22, 2022, 2:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Another massive contribution to input costs for production/growing crops has been fertilizer costs at record highs by a wide margin, starting late last year.

Farmers are not going to grow crops for a loss. They also have to pay a great deal of (fossil) fuel costs.

Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019

By metmike - June 23, 2022, 2:34 a.m.
Like Reply

Biden: “I Guarantee You We’re Going To End Fossil Fuel”

Sep 6, 2019

Joe Biden: “We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels”



Did Joe Biden Really Say He’d ‘Close Down the Oil Industry’?

Fossils fuels account for 80 percent of energy consumption. Is Joe Biden really promising to transition the entire US economy off of them?

Friday, October 23, 2020


Biden suspends oil and gas leasing in slew of executive actions on climate change


Biden's climate agenda: Is this the beginning of the end for fossil fuels?   31 January 2021


Biden administration stoking higher energy prices with oil and gas crackdown, JEC analysis shows

Energy prices have been major driver behind inflation, which surged 7% in December


Yes, Biden Is To Blame For The Energy Crisis. Here’s Why.

    By MacIver Staff -


Biden keeping his promise to ‘end fossil fuel’ increased gas prices, RSC memo shows

Influential GOP committee lists dozens of Biden’s policies contributing to record-high gas prices

March 28


'War on Fossil Fuel': Biden Says Painful Gas Prices Are Part of 'Incredible Transition' to Green Energy, 'God Willing'




White House says Biden still working to end fossil fuels: 'You can do both'                                      

by Haisten Willis, White House Reporter                  

           | June 16, 2022 04:10 PM