Submitted by:
Higher oil and gas prices will fuel Russia’s military to prosecute its war in Ukraine. The U.S. and OPEC need to speed up production.
Higher oil and gas prices will fuel Russia’s military to prosecute its war in Ukraine. The U.S. and OPEC need to speed up production.
“Our sanctions package is specifically designed to allow energy payments to continue.”
That was President Joe Biden’s statement on Feb. 24 on how U.S. and Western sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine would impact Russian oil and natural gas exports. So far, the answer is they won’t, despite calls by some to cut off Russia from global energy markets.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called for a full embargo on Feb. 26 on Twitter: “I demand the world: fully isolate Russia, expel ambassadors, oil embargo, ruin its economy.”
Here’s the problem: With Russia still accessing global commodities markets, higher oil and gas prices will fuel the ability of Moscow to prosecute its war in Ukraine. On the other hand, suddenly removing Russia, the number two oil exporter in the world behind Saudi Arabia, from global commodities markets could have severe unintended economic consequences, for example, by potentially sparking hyperinflation in the energy sector.
Oil prices are already very high, with Light Sweet Crude trading at $91 barrel and Brent Crude at $98 as of Feb. 25. Natural gas in the U.S. remains elevated with Henry Hub Natural Gas at $4.4 per 1,000 cubic feet, and in Europe prices on the Title Transfer Facility (TTF) in the Netherlands are up to $25.72 per 1,000 cubic feet.
If there is an embargo, the American people and the peoples of Europe and the UK have to be prepared for higher prices. Much higher prices. It is a move that could weaken the U.S. and European economies, immediately sparking a massive recession, likely further weakening the political administrations there. And who knows how long it will last or where it will lead geopolitically. And it might not save Ukraine.
On the other hand, if there is still a desire to somehow curb oil and gas subsidies to Moscow without a full-blown embargo, then the goal must be to reduce the price of oil and be prepared to continue supplying Europe in the worst case scenario of a wider war. There’s no other way.
That is why the U.S. and OPEC need to offset Russian energy dominance in Europe by dramatically increasing production. Saudi Arabia can take care of the oil, and the U.S. can take care of the natural gas.
On the natural gas side, in 2020, the European Union imported 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to Eurostat. And about 41 percent Europe’s imports come from Russia, or about 3.73 trillion cubic feet a year, 24 percent from Norway at 2.2 trillion cubic feet and 11 percent from Algeria at 1 trillion.
The Nord Stream 2, currently suspended by Germany because of the war, was built from 2018 and finished construction in Sept. 2021 at a cost of $11 billion, and would double the current pipelines’ distribution of 1.9 trillion cubic feet a year to 3.9 trillion cubic feet a year. In Nov. 2021, Germany delayed final regulatory approval of the pipeline project before the war. Germany already purchases about 55 percent of its natural gas from Russia before the new pipeline has even gone online.
To offset Russia on natural gas would require global production to increase by about 5.6 trillion cubic feet a year: Russia’s current 3.7 trillion plus the 1.9 trillion Nordstream 2 was supposed to produce. Could the U.S. help?
In 2020, the U.S. produced about 36.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2020, and consumed about 30.5 trillion cubic feet and exported 5.3 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Of those exports, about 793 billion went to Europe. In 2021, the number was about the same at 776 billion, according to the European Commission.
Assuming the U.S. were the only source increasing production of natural gas, it would have to more than double exports by about 5.6 trillion cubic feet to 41.8 trillion cubic feet in order to completely offset Russia, a 15 percent increase.
But there’s a problem: the EIA only projects a 1.9 percent increase in U.S. gas production in 2022.
One area that is lagging behind is natural gas leasing on federal lands, which Biden is delaying while the administration considers the fallout of a federal court ruling blocking higher cost estimates of climate change from be used when making rules for carbon regulations. Even there, though, the landscape is challenging.
About 4.4 trillion cubic feet of gas in the U.S. comes from federal lands. For an offset to come from federal lands would require more than doubling leasing and production on federal lands.
Then there are logistical issues. Just because oil and gas producers can get the commodities out of the ground, there is still somewhat of a limit on how much can refined and shipped based on available distribution.
That said, President Biden needs to get with Saudi Arabia — overcoming his poor relations with the Crown Prince — to begin increasing production immediately, the Green New Deal be damned.
The Keystone XL pipeline should be renewed. Increasing flows into the U.S. would take pressure off of global oil markets.
The same goes for Germany. On an emergency basis, any currently online nuclear power plants need to remain online and plans to curtail carbon emissions by decommissioning coal powered plants need to be indefinitely postponed. And all of Europe must begin exploiting its vast stores of oil and gas shale. There is simply too much at stake.
Europe is not prepared for war. The problem with immediately cutting off Europe’s current oil and gas supply is it would require pretty large increases in production and distribution elsewhere to keep markets properly supplied. But until that production kicks online, there may be little short-term advantage to kicking Russia out of the global economy, and might make Europe more vulnerable to attack if Moscow perceives weakness.
Be aware, an embargo — either from the West or Moscow just deciding to turn off the spigots — may be inevitable. And potentially irreversible.
The result would dramatically alter the global economy, with decades long consequences, assuming it doesn’t immediately or eventually provoke World War III. Russia would shift distribution to Asia, creating an entirely new economic bloc with China, Iran and its satellites, with its own financial systems. That would be a very powerful axis. Are we sure we want to be the ones who help create that by leaving Moscow with no other options? Be careful what you wish for.
In the meantime, Europe would suffer greatly in the short-term because of energy rationing, exacerbated largely due to self-inflicted wounds to curtail carbon emissions by shutting down coal electricity production, and also moves to denuclearize in large economies like Germany, which has substantially increased Europe’s demand for natural gas — by a lot.
It’s not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not within timeframes that would somehow save Ukraine. The only way to save Ukraine is militarily, and Biden, love it or hate it, forecasted that we were unwilling to intervene militarily, sacrificing strategic ambiguity, and increasing pressure on other U.S. satellites like Taiwan and South Korea.
Did Biden’s weakness embolden Russia? We’ll never know the counterfactual, and now we can only deal with the problems in front of us.
An oil and gas embargo on Russia might be inevitable and eventually necessary, especially in the event of a wider war. Rapidly increasing energy production will make the policy more viable by providing the U.S. the capacity to fully offset Russia as a source of European energy. Let’s get prepared — before it is too late.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.
Cartoon: Window to the Soul
By A.F. Branco
Click here for a higher level resolution version.
Time is running out for Congress to listen and defund vaccine mandates
Feb. 24, 2022, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today urged Congress to oppose any omnibus spending bill that allows implementation of President Joe Biden’s Covid vaccine mandates, including through the use of the Senate filibuster:
“Americans for Limited Government urges Congress to listen to the American people and oppose any omnibus spending bill that funds implementation of President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates, including with the use of the Senate filibuster. Compulsory vaccines are unconstitutional, unnecessary and counterproductive, resulting in a decrease of voluntary vaccinations in the months following their announcement. In a free country, the American people must be allowed to determine for themselves what their own risk tolerance is, whether it is with Covid, the flu or any other illness. The past month, 25 million emails have been sent to Congressional offices in opposition to vaccine mandates from Americans for Limited Government action alerts. Now, Congress must listen and act to protect liberty. No excuses.”
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2022/
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from the Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s John G. Malcolm and Thomas Jipping lay out what U.S. Senators should ask about her record and judicial philosophy:
What Senators Must Ask Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson About Her Record, Judicial Philosophy
By John G. Malcolm and Thomas Jipping
President Joe Biden has nominated U.S. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Who is Jackson? What is her judicial philosophy? And how should senators evaluate her nomination?
Here’s what you need to know.
Jackson’s rulings and previous comments offer clues as to why Biden nominated her to replace Breyer. She is a favorite of left-wing special-interest groups and was among the top front-runners for the seat.
At 51, she is just a year older than Justice Antonin Scalia was at the time of his 1986 appointment. He served for nearly 30 years.
With the Senate divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, it would take a defection from Biden’s party to block Jackson’s confirmation. Still, the most important task for the Senate is to determine, on the basis of Jackson’s legal experience and judicial philosophy, whether she is qualified for this lifetime appointment.
The Heritage Foundation publication “Supreme Consequences: How a President’s Bad Judicial Appointments Threaten Your Liberty” defines what makes a good judge or a bad judge.
Senators should evaluate Jackson using these criteria:
- Is she committed to faithfully applying the Constitution and statutes by relying on their original public meaning?
- Is she fair and impartial, putting facts ahead of her personal opinions?
- Does she understand that a judge’s role is limited?
- Will she reject outcome-oriented decisions?
Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson?
Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., but grew up in Miami. She has clerked for three judges, including Breyer, and also worked with major corporate law firms and as a federal public defender in Washington.
While in private practice, Jackson signed onto an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of several pro-abortion groups defending a Massachusetts law that created a 6-foot “floating buffer zone” around abortion clinics, and another on behalf of former federal judges arguing that the Detainee Treatment Act was not an adequate substitute for federal habeas corpus (a position that the Supreme Court ultimately adopted).
As a public defender, she represented a Guantanamo Bay detainee seeking habeas corpus review to challenge his classification as an “enemy combatant.”
The Senate unanimously approved Jackson’s 2005 nomination to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where she had previously served as an assistant special counsel, and her 2013 nomination by President Barack Obama to the U.S. District Court.
Jackson’s nomination by Biden last year to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, was not as smooth. The Senate ultimately voted to approve her nomination by a narrow 53-44 tally, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joining all 50 Democrats to confirm her.
What Is Jackson’s Judicial Record?
While on the bench, Jackson has issued some opinions that should trouble Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In 2019, in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, Jackson rejected a claim of executive privilege and held that former White House Counsel Don McGahn would have to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, stating, “Simply put, the primary takeaway from 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.” Her ruling was ultimately upheld by the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc.
Also in 2019, in Make the Road N.Y. v. McAleenan, Jackson granted an injunction in favor of immigration advocacy groups challenging the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security’s designation of aliens for expedited removal. She was reversed by the D.C. Circuit, which held that the DHS secretary had “sole and unreviewable discretion” to make such determinations.
In 2019, in Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia, Jackson denied a motion to dismiss a First Amendment challenge to D.C.’s Panhandling Control Act. The five plaintiffs were arrested for violating this statute, which defines panhandling as asking or begging for, or soliciting, alms by the spoken, written, or printed word. Jackson concluded that their complaint “plausibly alleges a viable First Amendment claim,” primarily by alleging that panhandling constitutes expressive conduct.
In 2018, in Policy and Research v. HHS (and a companion case), Jackson ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
After joining the D.C. Circuit, Jackson signed onto an opinion upholding a lower court decision rejecting former President Donald Trump’s effort to block the release of documents being held by the National Archives to the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 committee. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
And in her first written majority opinion, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, Jackson invalidated a 2020 rule by the Federal Labor Relations Authority that had restricted the bargaining power of federal-sector labor unions.
What Is Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy?
Jackson’s judicial philosophy, or her understanding of the power and proper role of judges in our system of government, should be a significant factor in the Senate’s confirmation process.
Last year, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she did not have a “judicial philosophy per se” but was bound, as a lower court judge, by Supreme Court precedent.
In response to written questions from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, she wrote that she was “bound by the methods of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has adopted, and I have a duty not to opine on the Supreme Court’s chosen methodology or suggest that I would undertake to interpret the text of the Constitution in any manner other than as the Supreme Court has directed.”
Of course, it is individual justices, not the high court as a whole, who adopt the “methodology” that they think is most appropriate when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Moreover, she will be free from any constraints she might otherwise have felt as a lower court judge if she is elevated to the Supreme Court.
It is essential that senators ask probing questions about her judicial philosophy.
While there may not yet be much to go on directly from her at this point, we do know what the Biden administration and its political allies want from their judicial appointees.
They have firmly embraced an explicitly political view of the judicial branch and the judges who serve there. They use cliches and vague phrases such as “personal and professional diversity” and the need for courts to “look like America,” but their plan is to appoint judges who will deliver results that favor certain groups and serve certain interests.
Last March, for example, more than 30 liberal groups urged senators to recommend for judicial appointment lawyers from certain sectors of the legal profession, such as public defenders and legal aid attorneys. They candidly admitted their hope that such lawyers, once they become judges, will produce politically desirable results, citing research published by the radical activist group Demand Justice that, they said, showed judges with certain legal backgrounds are more likely to rule a particular way on particular issues.
Jackson was on that group’s list of recommended Supreme Court nominees, so it is fair game to ask her whether she thinks her race, gender, or service as a public defender will make a difference in her judicial decisions.
Jackson has suggested that such personal factors should not matter when a judge handles cases. Last year, after the hearing on her appeals court nomination, she responded to written questions from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and stated that judges should take the same approach in every case, “no matter who or what is involved in the legal action.”
She has characterized impartiality, which is required by the oath of judicial office, as a constitutional mandate.
Moreover, Jackson responding to a question from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote that a judge “has a duty to decide cases based solely on the law … [T]o the extent that empathy is defined as one’s ability to share what another person is feeling from the other person’s point of reference, empathy should not play a role in a judge’s consideration of a case.”
That appears to contradict the statement of Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that judges must “be able to understand each litigant’s lived experience” in order to “apply the law equitably.”
Will Jackson be the kind of justice who thinks she “represents” constituencies and must follow her own sense of “equitable” justice, as the Biden administration wants? Or will she be the kind of justice who serves the law and seeks impartial justice?
These are radically different paths for the judiciary, but only one is consistent with our liberty.
Who Are Jackson’s Supporters?
Whenever a Republican president has made a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats have cited the groups supporting that nominee as evidence of how he or she would make decisions.
If that is a legitimate argument, then it should also apply to Biden’s nominee. Jackson was recommended for nomination by Demand Justice, which advocates for an overtly political judiciary and has helped lead the charge for court-packing. It also wants to abolish the legislative filibuster and has called Trump’s appointment of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett “illegitimate.”
Demand Justice is headed by Brian Fallon, described by CNN as “a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.”
The web of so-called dark money groups gets even more complicated. As Politico reported, Jackson “enlisted Robert Raben … to help with the deluge of press scrutiny.” A principal in Raben’s public affairs firm, Jeremy Paris, was chief nominations counsel for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and is executive director of the Committee for a Fair Judiciary, another advocate of judges who would champion liberal causes.
On that group’s board sits Chris Kang, who advised the Obama administration on judicial nominations and is … wait for it … chief counsel of Demand Justice.
A dozen liberal groups, led by Demand Justice, sent a letter to Biden earlier this week urging him to nominate someone “with public defense experience to the Supreme Court.” Jackson was the only leading candidate for the forthcoming Breyer vacancy with such experience.
One news report described the letter as “unmistakenly crafted to boost Jackson … in the final stretch before a decision.” That alone should give Republican senators pause.
Jackson should be asked some tough question about whether she shares their views that Lady Justice should remove her blindfold and tip the scales and that courts should be overtly political institutions.
To view online: https://www.dailysignal.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment