Politicizing Petroleum Policy

The Putin Russia invasion of Ukraine has exposed the tender underbelly where oil intersects public policy and where war intersects climate. But the Left simply forgets that oil and energy is a national security issue.

It is fruitless to even talk about hypocrisy anymore. But in the hearings with the big oil companies, it has gone further than just hypocrisy. Democrats want it both ways. They want immediate increased production but they make no bones they want to cut the oil market completely. Last year, they wanted massive cuts in oil and fossil fuel production. All to appease their radical left, climatology political agenda. 

Democrats don’t want to cut production, they want to eliminate it. Wipe it forever off the face of the earth. So while they cry now demanding more, they actually want zero.

But consumers know the basic fact very well of a market relying on supply and demand. They know that ultra high prices require more production to alleviate those high costs. Prices may appear out of control but the industry is increasingly more controlled by government and radical politicians.

The Democrats don’t mind begging from unfriendly dictators who don’t like us much. Actually, they gave them all that leverage over us for free.

The problem is there are environmental impacts of so-called renewables. They require minerals, mining and indeed have an affect on environment. Calling them “clean renewables” is an oxymoron. Plastics are another example of endless oil products. How many plastics are incorporated into their green-dream products? And you will have the same hoarding potential and environmental difficulties in ramping up renewable markets. We already see it around the world. The same departments that control and obfuscate the oil sector will plague the renewable sector. Government control does that.

For years, people railed against a government command economy — not to be confused with supply and demand markets –for exactly that reason. It sort of takes market problems out of the equation.

At one time maybe Democrats only lusted for full control of the oil industry, the way Putin controls it in Russia. Now they simply want to eliminate it altogether. Once upon a time we called it a war on coal, then it became a war on fossil fuels and evolved into a full-blown war on energy. They claimed that was not so, but now they  boast about a war against all fossil fuel energy.

Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths; they want it both ways.

I listened to the hearings just to come away with one conclusion. If Democrats wanted to be lobbyists against big oil — for renewables — they could do that. But they are elected to Congress to represent the interests of the country. And if Joe Biden wanted to be a union organizer, like Obama, he could have been one. But that is not the job of the president.

Things that have made this country run and improved our lives for years, creating millions of jobs, are now preferred targets of society. They simply have no respect for how we got here. In fact, there is an effort to erase the entire roadmap. Well, there is always satire.

Paul Revere’s Ride

“Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five:
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow – 1807-1882

But when Paul Revere rode out to alarm fellow countrymen, his horse emitted large amounts of waste in the process. Shouldn’t we factor in the age of the horse, with how much gas and waste it produced over its lifetime? Or how many people – white, black or Native Americans — who were negatively affected by these equestrian contributions? Must not we calibrate all those numbers into a new formula? Surely, based on a quick summary, we could see that the horse negatively impacted the environment, and humans, more than it benefited us all.

So it is long past time to take some retributive actions against these equestrian terrorists of the environment. Sure, the horse might have  made Paul Revere’s trip possible but at what calamitous cost to the earth? If we only knew or realized then what we now know , we could have prevented all that pain.

Paul — the meddling silversmith and industrialist he was — did not need to make his dumb trip for starters. And that asinine horse did not need to contribute to the “equitable” decay of our environment and climate, even for generations to come. This we can see clearly now because we have been awakened to the accumulative catastrophe of our deeds. 

We did all that. Why the hell were horses not taxed for their environmental impact? No, instead we encouraged their use. This only compounded the problems. So based on any summary analysis on the subject, I can therefore say the entire horse industry contributed to the decline in our climate. That’s just a fact. Anything we can do to eliminate it, and nip the damage in the tail, would only benefit our clean American future.

Revere should have relaxed, stayed home, euthanized the damn horse, and saved us all from our current fate. What a selfish bastard he turned out to be. Well, at least they could have increased the cost of horses to an unaffordable level so no idiot would have a chance to consider such a stunt, or misguided trip. ~~ Not so satirical end.


However, even more egregious with oil, they don’t want to just eliminate the industry, they want to politicize the entire industry. We’ve seen this in every government agency. Now they want to do the same thing to virtually every company, especially big oil.

How that shakes out is demonstrated in the hearings themselves. Democrats bring CEOs in to rip them apart and demand they do this or that. So it automatically pairs Republicans with oil companies. After all, we are the only ones who believe they should exist.

Democrats have accused the oil companies of manipulating the market prices and profiteering, taking advantage of crises and current events. Democrats’ answer to those charges and high prices is to release the SPRO to manipulate market prices.

The other obvious conclusion is this shows why we do not ever want government in complete control of our energy, or companies who provide it. One day they want to cut supply and the next they want it increased, based primarily on their political objectives. That’s the way they run everything else they control, immigration for instance.

So then, what would it take to get rid of exorbitant high fuel prices? Get rid of half of Congress that has a fatwa against the industry. Then replace a radicalized president who cares more about his family’s lucrative income than America’s national security.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022