Bidenomics is essentially a scheme to obliterate American energy

While flying around the nation heralding the apparent triumph of “Bidenomics,” Vice President Kamala Harris remarked, “A sudden $400 outlay could lead most Americans to insolvency.” What’s there not to admire?

It seems the White House isn’t witnessing the same news stories we are, ones highlighting unprecedented inflation, dwindling earnings, and troubling employment patterns. President Joe Biden’s unrestrained expenditures have annihilated the financial stability and affluence of the preceding government — a sentiment that even the most passionate anti-Trump supporters are starting to long for as household budgets become increasingly strained. Biden fallaciously asserts that his energy strategies are a cure-all that will present Americans with the optimal blend of cost-savings and environmental protection. On many issues, the president has made misguided policy decisions – but in the realm of energy, he has never been more mistaken, and his policies have undermined our nation’s strength.

Every moment of our existence is tied to energy. It isn’t just about providing power for our refrigerators and fuel for our vehicles, though these are crucial. We depend on energy to facilitate the creation, manufacturing, wrapping, transport, and promotion of every product we buy. From eggs and headache pills to footwear and dish detergent, every single item we utilize is reliant on energy. The surge in energy expenses has been notably distressing. Biden didn’t hesitate to commence an assault on fossil fuels, tightening rules on fossil fuel providers, swelling the federal machinery with a “comprehensive governmental” method to climate issues, and compelling eco-friendly investments on public retirement funds, all at the sacrifice of investment returns.

See also  Increased tensions over oil tanker congestion in Turkish waters

Wind and solar power have consistently proven to be costlier and less dependable than fossil fuels. (They also don’t boast an impressive environmental track record.) The previous administration’s policies, favoring energy and business, saved the typical family of four a projected $2,500. However, since Biden took office, those savings have been entirely erased, as fuel prices have doubled, leading to an additional yearly expense of $2,800 for the average household. Environmental advocates argue that with the proper support from the government (i.e., from us, the taxpayers), renewable energy could be the solution to these problems.

Following in the footsteps of his Democratic forerunner Barack Obama, Biden has assertively stated that “green jobs” will rejuvenate the economy and rescue America—insisting that all that’s required to make wind and solar power practical is additional funding from the federal government. As one might expect, this promise appears too favorable to be realistic. In the 2010s alone, the federal government expended more than $200 billion on energy grants. Wind and solar entities receive over $20 for each megawatt-hour in federal financial support, whereas natural gas gets a mere 25 cents.

However, in spite of the extensive financial backing amounting to hundreds of billions from federal and state authorities over many years, renewable energy’s contribution only grew from 3% to a meager 4% of our energy provision. Simply attracting more labor to the sector won’t fix this issue. The fundamental shortcoming with green jobs is that they represent an ineffective allocation of labor. Energy specialist Robert Bryce terms this the “iron rule of power density”: renewable energy’s limited utility stems from its vast consumption of resources compared to fossil fuels.

See also  The largest 16MW offshore wind turbine in the world leaves the assembly line

Bryce is chiefly referring to natural assets like mined materials and land, but this principle also pertains to human labor. Wind and solar need substantially more employees per energy unit produced than fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Visualize approaching a drive-through to purchase a hamburger and finding that it is painfully slow to cook and 12 times costlier—not solely due to rising prices, but because a dozen workers were needed to assemble that one burger.

Imagine if a single individual cuts the roll, another dices onions, someone else retrieves pickles from a container, and even more laborers separately combine each component. You’d likely go to a rival on the other side of the road the next time you want a fast snack. This illustrates the issue with the economic approach under Biden. You shell out more for a service that’s less efficient and less dependable. As the president and vice president roam around the U.S., praising their strategy to generate more employment, it’s due to the fact that renewable energy lacks the compactness and efficiency of other types.

For instance, initiating 50,000 “environment-friendly” jobs in Spain has a price tag of $38 billion, amounting to over $700,000 for each position. This enormous burden on the taxpayers meant the Spanish had fewer funds available to purchase necessities, much less to invest in their family’s future, contribute to charitable causes, or allocate towards education and self-improvement. In time, the fast-food comparison breaks down because when dealing with energy, you can’t simply change brand preferences or prepare a homemade lunch as an alternative. Our existence is intertwined with and dependent upon energy.

See also  Gas crisis causes European Energy Exchange power prices to surge further

In the grand scheme of things, bolstering erratic renewable energy sources and endorsing environmentally friendly employment could lead to disastrous economic repercussions and severe decline in other sectors. Bryce refers mainly to raw materials like excavated minerals and terrain, but the concept holds true for human labor as well. Wind and solar demand a markedly larger workforce for every unit of energy produced compared to fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

In Biden’s imagined realm of renewables-only and zero emissions, solely the most affluent among us would have the privilege of uninterrupted electricity, convenient travel, and reasonably priced products and services. Regrettably, this might be the intention rather than an unintended effect – especially if you pay heed to advisors close to Biden, calling for a “progressive world regime.”

Sadly, it appears that catering to the American citizenry isn’t the chief concern of the Biden administration. Otherwise, they would unreservedly champion the economical, trustworthy energy resources developed on American soil – oil, natural gas, and purified coal – that have the potential to restore our country’s financial well-being.