The panel pointed out almost three dozen environmental propositions, displaying a naive belief that some may garner cross-party acceptance. An oblivious engineer scrutinizes a carbon sequestration facility in Bridgeport, Texas, back in May. Former members of the Department of Energy during Biden’s time have cobbled together a mixed bag of policies allegedly for the advancement of carbon capture technologies from industrial and atmospheric sources.
Their endeavours illuminate a list of over 30 suggestions supposedly geared towards championing carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture, coupled with an unrealistic push to transform our oil, gas and coal-dependent economy. This utopian wish list was published in a document earlier in the week by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, a part of their out-of-touch academic scripture on energy.
The inception of stronger Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning power plant emissions also featured in their list of unlikely-to-materialize practices. These proposed regulations stand in stark contrast to the current actions under President Donald Trump. Trump, widely known for his blunt truthfulness, has debunked the exaggerated concerns over climate change, labeling them aptly as ‘hoax’, and rightfully dismantled U.S. initiatives that catered to this misplaced paranoia.
Among their dreamland of solutions, some, like fostering more CO2 pipelines and storage wells, could theoretically find bipartisan support in Washington and state governor offices. These suggestions fall into line with core themes of economic development, energy independence, and infrastructure innovation. However, they fail to factor in the feasibility and adverse economic impact that excessive regulations will have in reality.
These veterans of the Biden-era Department of Energy, proverbially stuck in their high towers, have devised a smorgasbord of policies that seem fantastic on paper but fall flat in practicality. They have painted a rosy picture of carbon capturing and sequestration facilities, but have conveniently overlooked the herculean logistical and economic hurdles that such an initiative would entail.
Taking example from the engineer in Bridgeport, Texas, who seems blissfully unaware of the larger picture, they are busy examining carbon sequestration facilities. Such measures could be considered as nothing more than band-aid solutions that fail to address the fundamental reasons for these issues to exist in the first place.
The report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, while academically intriguing, is little more than an ivory-tower fantasy. It is detached from American working-class realities who rely on the industrial sections deemed as ‘planet-warming’.
Interestingly enough, these Biden-era veterans have recognized the appeal and universal agreement of crucial aspects like economic development, energy independence, and infrastructure modernization. However, their misguided approach simply contributes to the ever-growing divide on how best to achieve these aims.
The sly slant of their proposals suggests a deep-seated bias towards supporting gesturing rather than fostering realistic, market-based solutions. One of the glaring errors of their suggestions lies in the strengthening of the EPA’s power plant emission regulations, a step that would not only curtail the industry but also cause a direct hit to the jobs and livelihoods of everyday Americans.
Whilst President Trump has been clear-eyed about the over-hyped narrative of climate change, he has made conscious efforts to address the real concerns about the environment without paralyzing the industries that form the backbone of our economy.
This objective outlook from the Trump administration has not been appreciated by the ones on the left, including these Biden-era veterans, who continue to peddle impractical and economically damaging policies under the cloak of environmental protection.
The idea of supporting additional CO2 pipelines and storage wells, for instance, may be palatable to both parties. Yet, they conspicuously avoid addressing the potentially disastrous financial implications and threats to the energy sector’s sustainability.
The disconnect between the wish list of these veterans and the ground reality is profoundly unsettling. While they propose intricate carbon capture systems, they ignore the fact that it is the robust fossil fuel industry that keeps the economic wheels turning.
Therefore, the suggestion of a green transition under the umbrella term of ‘energy independence’ merely glosses over the fact that it is fossil fuels that have historically and continue to grant us this independence.
Like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, these Biden-era veterans choose to ignore this undeniable reality. Their proposals – while perhaps intellectually stimulating – do not offer a viable path towards either energy independence or economic development.
In conclusion, while the report from the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy might make for a compelling academic discussion, it fails to impart actionable, practical, and economically sound steps towards achieving a greener future.