The Bright Side of the Manchin/Schumer Climate Deal

Guest “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” by David Middleton

While there is a lot to dislike about the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, it’s infinitely better than its predecessor, Build Back Better and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) appears to have extracted major concessions on energy, particularly regarding fossil fuels.

Manchin Levels Energy Playing Field. Sort Of.
New proposal by Sen. Joe Manchin slashes the renewable energy subsidy by 80%, extends it to nuclear, and makes renewables leases on federal lands dependent upon oil and gas leases

Michael Shellenberger
Jul 28

For the last two weeks, Democrats have hammered Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) as a fossil fuel-funded sell-out for killing proposed climate and energy legislation that he said would have been inflationary. Today, they are lionizing Manchin for rescuing a bill that would be, according to The New York Times, “the most ambitious action ever taken by the United States to try to stop the planet from catastrophically overheating.”

But the legislation also slashes the renewable energy tax credit by 80%, extends it to existing nuclear plants, and prohibits wind and solar development on federal land, or in federal waters, unless oil or gas lease sales have also been issued. As such, the legislation goes a long way toward doing what Manchin has long said he wanted to do, which is to level the playing field between all energy sources.

[…]

Michael Shellenberger Substack

The bill appears to force the Biden maladministration to obey the law and hold offshore lease sales. It also explicitly orders the Department of the Interior to honor the results of Lease Sale 257, which had been unlawfully voided by a corrupt Obama judge.

3 (b) LEASE SALE 257 REINSTATEMENT.—
4 (1) ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS.—Not later 30 days
5 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec6 retary shall, without modification or delay—
7 (A) accept the highest valid bid for each
8 tract or bidding unit of Lease Sale 257 for
9 which a valid bid was received on November 17,
10 2021; and
11 (B) provide the appropriate lease form to
12 the winning bidder to execute and return.

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, page 643

The bill goes on to order the Department of the Interior to quickly issue the leases and abide by the “terms and conditions of the final notice of sale entitled ‘Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257′.”

It also specifically orders the Secretary of the Interior to hold, and honor the results of, at least one offshore lease sale in 2022. These provisions have infuriated the Enviromarxists…

A sustainable climate deal

By DEBRA KAHN 

07/29/2022

[…]

In a radio interview Thursday, Manchin said he focused on including benefits for fossil fuels because most Democrats didn’t appreciate that their climate goals would only work if the United States was energy independent.

“It’s hard to get people to even think that way, because they were so aspirational — ‘Get rid of all fossil, get rid of all coal, get rid of all oil, get rid of all gas, get rid of everything,’” he said. “Yeah, and it would go to hell in a handbasket.”

The language would mandate lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska, as well as tying together federal leasing for renewables and oil and gas. The Center for Biological Diversity called its decision to “handcuff” renewables and petroleum together a “climate suicide pact,” as E&E’s Scott Waldman writes.

[…]

Politico

How Manchin-Schumer would change energy, from oil to solar
By David Iaconangelo, Heather Richards, Carlos Anchondo, Peter Behr | 07/29/2022

[…]

Oil and gas

Along with many climate-targeted policies, the bill has provisions that would boost oil and gas, sparking frustration from activists but fitting with Manchin’s priorities — and his attempts to mollify GOP lawmakers and avoid party-line opposition.

Perhaps most importantly, the package would force the president to redo an oil auction in the Gulf of Mexico from last year that was vacated by a federal judge. It would also force three additional offshore sales, two in the Gulf and one off the Alaska coast, that were canceled by the White House earlier this year.

The language stops short, however, of dictating specifically what the Biden administration does with its pending five-year offshore leasing plan, which will govern oil and gas leasing beyond this administration.

Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, said the bill was a compromise “grounded in reality” and “a serious path forward that lifts offshore energy of all types, to the betterment of our nation.”

Shell PLC Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden said during a conference call with reporters he was pleased to see the bill include future leases for offshore oil exploration.

Van Beurden and others in the industry have argued that the world’s oil producers need to invest more in new oil and gas sources to help bring down the price of fuel. Many experts also have noted the need for climate policymakers to focus on reducing demand for oil and gas rather than production, as cutting the supply of crude can have far-reaching economic consequences.

“In countries like the U.S. that have a very strong domestic supply position themselves, just curtailing domestic supply in the hope that somehow domestic demand will follow suit is not a realistic policy,” van Beurden said. “If you persist with basically curtailing supply, the only thing that will happen is you will import it from somewhere else.”

But with increasing climate risks pressing on society, several groups criticized the bundle of offers to oil and gas.

“This so-called deal forced by Senator Manchin is what we would expect when Congress is so closely divided and friends and beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industry have effective control over ‘climate’ policy,” said Food & Water Action Executive Director Wenonah Hauter in a statement. “We should not accept deals that strengthen the oil and gas industry to the detriment of us all.”

[…]

E&E News Energy Wire

Looks like I better get ready to work a lease sale this year after all!

Of course, there’s always a chance that the Democrats’ loony left-wing will accede to the demands of the Enviromarxts and prevent it from passing the House.

When asked if he would support a Biden reelection bid, Sen. Manchin had an interesting answer…

When asked if he believes Biden has earned a second term, Manchin initially demurred on each citizen’s need to consult their own conscience. When pushed to weigh in with his own thoughts, Manchin said, “If Joe Biden runs again — if he’s the Democrat nominee — depending on who the Republican nominee is, we’ll just have to wait and see.”

Yahoo! Life
4.5 16 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
July 29, 2022 6:07 pm

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
July 29, 2022 6:20 pm

Oops. Just saw you already linked to Monty P.

Twice is nice!

Tom Halla
July 29, 2022 6:19 pm

“It could be worse” is a rather lame judgement of energy policy. But that is the best one can expect from Brandon.

observa
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 29, 2022 6:42 pm
July 29, 2022 6:28 pm

David–very clear summary–TKS

Brad-DXT
July 29, 2022 6:43 pm

The bright side would be if Sinema rejects the bill because of the inflationary effects or the Squad members reject it because it is not loony enough.
Even Obama is quoted on saying that the government should not raise taxes in a recession.

(I know the sock-puppet resident of the White House and his handlers are trying to convince people that we’re not in a recession but, no one is buying that line of crap.)

John Tillman
Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 29, 2022 6:50 pm

IMO Obama says whatever eminence gris Valerie Jarrett tells him tio say,

John Hultquist
Reply to  John Tillman
July 29, 2022 7:45 pm

Does Valerie share an office with Susan Rice?

roaddog
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 29, 2022 10:14 pm

If there were an Iranian Embassy she’d be housed there.

joe x
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 30, 2022 4:40 am

yes, with thick shag carpeting.

lee
Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 29, 2022 7:50 pm

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 29, 2022 9:02 pm

Brandon is still trying to convince people that printing more money is the ticket for taming inflation.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2022 12:57 am

No kidding. Build Back Better is going to happen as 3 giant bills instead of 1 giant bill.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 29, 2022 9:44 pm

Instead of calling him Brandon, maybe we should call him Humpty Dumpty.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 30, 2022 4:51 am

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

tgasloli
July 29, 2022 6:43 pm

But since ESG will exclude investment in fossil fuel the available fossil fuel leases will be a sham and the renewables will go ahead anyway.

The bill needs to be examined for the pork
that really bought off Manchin.

Steve Case
July 29, 2022 6:57 pm

     and prohibits wind and solar development on federal land,
     or in federal waters, unless oil or gas lease sales have also
     been issued.

You take what you can get.

     the Biden maladministration

You don’t have to call them names or pound the table, the facts
stand as their own testimony.

     Get rid, coal, oil, gas, and it would go to hell in a handbasket.

Bingo net zero at any date is a recipe for disaster.

roaddog
Reply to  David Middleton
July 29, 2022 10:15 pm

Green Covidians.

william Johnston
Reply to  Steve Case
July 30, 2022 7:33 am

Disaster = net zero for our country’s existence.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steve Case
August 1, 2022 4:33 am

It’s not name calling when it’s true.

John Hultquist
July 29, 2022 7:43 pm

I guess I missed the part where it is proved the planet is “catastrophically overheating.”

Lark
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 29, 2022 8:18 pm

-We need big government.
-Only big government can deal with a catastrophe.
Therefore, there must be a catastrophe.*
QED

*And if there isn’t one, we need to make one.

Yooper
Reply to  Lark
July 30, 2022 4:23 am

BIG Government IS the catastrophe…

Paul Jenkinson
Reply to  Lark
July 30, 2022 8:09 am

There is a catastrophe
A catastrophe needs big government.
Therefore we need Big Government
Big government has to control it’s citizenry in a catastrophe.
That catastrophe will induce mortal fear in the citizenry.
The Citizenzy will necessarily lose freedoms gladly.
Those freedoms will include economic freedoms.
The economic lost freedoms will cause loss of the middle class.
There will be left the former elites and a new much larger lower class.

….and repeat for each and all basic rights presently enjoyed by citizens in Western Democracies.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
July 30, 2022 9:09 am

Except for the U.S. There is that damned Bill of Rights in its Constitution.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 30, 2022 12:53 pm

According to the left, the 1st amendment was never intended to protect hate speech. And what is hate speech? Any speech that a leftist disagrees with.
According to VP Harris, the 2nd amendment was never intended to protect guns that are capable of killing people.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 30, 2022 4:10 am

You didn’t miss anything, John. There is no climate crisis.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 1, 2022 6:55 pm

What are you talking about Tom? No crisis?

It’s been summer weather almost all summer. I haven’t experienced anything like this jn nearly a dozen months. It’s an ultra MAGA catastrophic crisis of unprecedented proportions. I’m out of adjectives.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 29, 2022 7:46 pm

The legislation discussed in the above article is actually named the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, not the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2022” as stated in the first sentence.

While some of the bill’s funding (less than half, only $300 billion) is devoted to “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (yeah, r-i-g-h-t!), $370 billion is to be spent on “energy security and climate change programs” and another $64 billion is to be spent extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act through year 2025. (ref: https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/27/manchin-and-u-s-senate-democrats-strike-a-deal-on-major-health-climate-tax-package/ )

So, let’s see . . . since October 2020, Congress has already spent/committed about $6 TRILLION to fight COVID, to pay for US “infrastructure”, and to “build back better” (the last to basically recover from the disaster of government misfeasance and malfeasance over the last decade or two).

So Congress thinks NOW is a really good time to add another $0.73 TRILLION in spending, notwithstanding the clear fact that the previous $6 trillion of spending is the root cause of the current hyper-inflation sweeping across the US??? . . . that is, is too much “printed money” chasing too few goods and services, per the Austrian school of economics.

Well, their deflection of the basic problem shines in their naming of the bill: Inflation Reduction. In a pig’s eye!

For a bill with a 10 year timespan! . . . hmmm, no real hurry to flight inflation right now, I guess.

That Senators and Representatives can even mention the name of this bill in front of any voter speaks volumes about how America has dumbed down over the last 50 years.

Last edited 20 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 29, 2022 8:29 pm

In reality, The inflation inflammation and deficit soaring pork barrel attempt to save the midterms for the Democrats Act of 2022.

John Endicott
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
August 1, 2022 4:35 am

Yes but that won’t fit on a bumper sticker (to be placed on the bumper of a Electric Vehicle, natch).

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 29, 2022 9:29 pm

It isn’t hyperinflation … yet.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 29, 2022 9:57 pm

If the Democrats have their way with spending, hyper inflation won’t be far off.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 30, 2022 11:53 am

“It isn’t hyperinflation … yet.”

That depends on who is doing the bookkeeping.

John Endicott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 1, 2022 4:36 am

It isn’t hyperinflation … yet.”

And if it was, we simply redefine the word “hyperinflation” in order to claim it isn’t hyperinflation. 😉

roaddog
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 29, 2022 10:16 pm

The Mid-Term Salvage Act.

BobM
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 30, 2022 7:22 am

I’m not 100% sure, but I think they all “have a 10 year timespan” because that is how long the Congressional Budget Office uses to price out the income/outflow to determine the cost/benefit of any bill to the budget.

Dave Fair
Reply to  BobM
July 30, 2022 9:14 am

And that is why all the out-year “savings” are up to future Congresses. In a pig’s eye.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  BobM
July 30, 2022 11:51 am

“. . . that is how long the Congressional Budget Office uses to price out the income/outflow to determine the cost/benefit of any bill to the budget.”

Sure. Right.

And just how many times has Congress reported back to the American people “You know, that particular bill that we passed 10 years ago never did achieve the benefit-to-cost ratio that we predicted . . . it was a miserable failure”?

Congress literally “banks” on the short term memory of the average US voter.

And, in any event, what’s the penalty if the cost/benefit ratio is totally fabricated in order to get the legislation passed? . . . each member of Congress gonna write on the blackboard (or their iPad) 100 times “I must use better judgment in the future”?

ROTFLMAO!

Last edited 19 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Old Retired Guy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 1, 2022 8:31 am

I used to ask Obama administration execs like Jason Furman about that. Standard answer: too many factors in the economy to narrow it down.

Too bad they can’t see the same point with climate…100 years out.

George T
July 29, 2022 8:09 pm

Thanks for the insight. Not the sort of insight or reporting one could have received from our lame stream media. Although there was a bone in the bill for petroleum to satisfy Senator Manchin the entire spending package stinks. More spending for useless projects, to include higher taxes and additional IRS enforcement. The governance coming out of the swamp is utterly pathetic. Perhaps the House of Representatives will reject it and the entire package will go down in flames. Good riddance!

Dennis G. Sandberg
July 29, 2022 8:14 pm

“the package would force the president to redo an oil auction in the Gulf of Mexico from last year that was vacated by a federal judge. It would also force three additional offshore sales, two in the Gulf and one off the Alaska coast, that were canceled by the White House earlier this year”.

So the democrats openly violate the law, and then when they (temporarily) agree to follow the law, we non-liberals are supposed to accept that as a big concession? And we’re supposed to trust them “this time”? Any chance that was the democrat strategy all along? If the dems were not manipulative, they wouldn’t be anything. The Bill stinks to high heaven, admit it. Anything the dems propose is worse than doing nothing, every time, every where, every reason.

roaddog
Reply to  David Middleton
July 30, 2022 5:41 am

Exactly.

Old Retired Guy
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2022 8:47 am

Dave, check out today’s WSJ article on how the EV requirements include “friendly nation and North American content requirements. Recognizing that EVs are limited use vehicles, and not really CO2 reducing, at least it would reduce benefits to China, Russia, etc.

Oh, and 1 of my sons just had the fun of dealing with a rental EV driving back from Mackinac Island after the Chicago to Mackinac Island boat race. He got Double Brandoned – tested positive for Covid, and then had to drive home alone in an EV. Let’s just say he isn’t in the market for one of those POS any time soon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
July 30, 2022 4:20 am

“So the democrats openly violate the law, and then when they (temporarily) agree to follow the law, we non-liberals are supposed to accept that as a big concession? And we’re supposed to trust them “this time”?”

That was my thought, too.

Manchin portrays himself as the good guy and thinks he’s fooling people.

Actually, Manchin is a liar. He said just a few weeks ago that he would not vote to increase spending until he saw the next inflation report, which presumably would be much lower and then allow him to vote for more spending.

But he didn’t even wait for the report, and there’s no evidence inflation is going to be lower if he did wait. So he lied to the American people and went back on his word. That’s the way I will look at him in the future: A liar who doesn’t care if his actions cause prices to increase for the poorest members of society, already stressed by price increases.

You wouldn’t be getting my vote if I lived in West Virginia.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
July 30, 2022 9:17 am

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Jeff Alberts
July 29, 2022 8:49 pm

Build Back Better”

You misspelled “Build a Bigger Welfare State”.


MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 29, 2022 9:58 pm

Build back Butter

dk_
July 29, 2022 8:56 pm

“Looks like I better get ready to work a lease sale this year after all!”

Wait a bit.

“To be sure, there is much in the bill to dislike, and there are real questions about whether it can pass.” — Shellenberger, Ibid.

Next week may be interesting.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dk_
July 29, 2022 9:50 pm

We live in interesting times!

dk_
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2022 11:03 pm

Indeed, An appropriately Chinese curse!

Last edited 20 days ago by dk_
Yooper
Reply to  dk_
July 30, 2022 4:30 am

The August Recess period is a prime opportunity for grassroots engagement as legislators return home hoping to hear directly from the voters they represent. For 2022, members of the House of Representatives are scheduled to be in the district for 45 days – from July 30 to September 13.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Yooper
July 30, 2022 9:21 am

45 days of taxpayer supported electioneering. Add that to Franking privileges and government-supplied District offices & etc. Is it any wonder that House of Representative’s reelection rates are above 90%?

n.n
July 29, 2022 9:12 pm

Progressive prices, notably forced by the medical sector (e.g. Obamacares), energy sector (e.g. Green blight), education sector (e.g. shared/shifted responsibility), and other redistributive schemes.

Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2022 10:08 pm

The bill has allocated $1.5 billion to reduce methane emissions. With about two-thirds of emissions being natural, it is unlikely that even a 50% reduction in anthropogenic emissions will have measurable results.

roaddog
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2022 10:17 pm

Methane is irrelevant.

Drake
Reply to  roaddog
July 30, 2022 9:25 am

Actually at my home in LV, I heat, cook, dry clothes and heat water with natural gas which is primarily methane. So to me, methane is very relevant.

Now since CAGW is irrelevant, methane is irrelevant to the ever changing climate.

roaddog
Reply to  Drake
July 30, 2022 9:10 pm

I stand corrected. Thank you, sir.

michel
July 29, 2022 11:46 pm

The Center for Biological Diversity called its decision to “handcuff” renewables and petroleum together a “climate suicide pact,”

You notice the feverish tone?

Also notice the claim

“We should not accept deals that strengthen the oil and gas industry to the detriment of us all.”

Somehow we have moved from considering that global warming is a problem for humanity to considering that the oil and gas industry and oil and gas use in the US is climate-suicidal, the enemy of all of us, and must be stopped.

Despite the obvious fact that, even if the theory is right, the abolition of gas and oil use in the US would just destroy the economy, reduce the country to about the standard of living of 100 years back, and have no measurable effect on the global temperatures, which are supposed to be the justification for all this hysteria.

This is a very dangerous episode of mass hysteria, and it has not peaked yet.

George T
Reply to  michel
July 30, 2022 3:26 am

These people simply have no idea how vital petroleum and natural gas are to our existence. When there are no lights, no heat, no AC not to mention all the products and services we enjoy made or that use or require petroleum or gas inputs etc… The rude awakening because a serious reality for the dimwits. This da*n green energy rubbish and the idiotic climate change foolishness is full of numerous unintended consequence. Look at what is happening in Hanover, Germany.

H.R.
Reply to  George T
July 30, 2022 6:27 am

George T: “These people simply have no idea how vital petroleum and natural gas are to our existence.”

Yes they do. They know it full well.

Control energy and you control our modern society. Deny energy to those you want gone and in short order, they are toast. The current denial of oil and gas to us serfs will greatly reduce our numbers. That’s a feature, not a bug and is part of the plan to reduce the population to ‘sustainable’ levels.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michel
July 30, 2022 4:27 am

“This is a very dangerous episode of mass hysteria, and it has not peaked yet.”

This is true. A mass delusion causing parts of humanity to rush for the edge of the cliff. Manchin leading the charge.

Tom Abbott
July 30, 2022 4:06 am

From the article: “But with increasing climate risks pressing on society,”

That’s a lie.

Manchin just added a lot more inflation to your bills, folks. If this law passes.

This article doesn’t make me feel any better about Manchin or his actions. Let’s see if the Biden administration abides by the deal.

What about that tax on coal? Is that a good deal for West Virginia or the nation?

What about adding money to the Unaffordable Care Act?

Democrats are a danger to our personal freedoms. They prove it every day.

Enlightened Archivist
July 30, 2022 5:28 am

It was dead Joe. Dead. There is no compromising with the left. And we don’t have the money. Stop printing & spending.

roaddog
July 30, 2022 5:30 am

Its important to understand that this is legislation promoted by an administration that is claiming credit for an (approximate) 0.70 a gallon drop in gas prices, on the heels of an (approximate, your mileage will vary) 2.65 a gallon increase in gas prices for which they are directly responsible.

This is legislation promoted by an administration which is claiming credit for a (supposedly) dramatic increase in available job positions, when in fact total job positions are now only 140,000 higher than existed before the Covid Pandemic.

Liars lie, and green depradations on the American lifestyle will continue unabated.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  roaddog
July 30, 2022 8:36 am

Here is Dublin they are bragging about a drop in fuel prices from €2.13 to €1.99 but ignoring that they were €1.33 just before covid struck or that tax on the fuel is around 50%. We would have a riot on our hands if our groceries had a tax of this amount but the authorities hide the tax from the car owner.

Barnes Moore
July 30, 2022 5:50 am

I forget where I read the analysis and the exact details, but the point was the 80% reduction in renewable energy subsidy is largely a mirage with many ways to maintain the current level and even increase it. If I find the piece that explains it, I will post. Frankly, my fear is that like so many bills, this one is so dense and complex that there will not be enough time to sufficiently vet it to find all the hidden gotchas. I would rather it not be passed and hope this whole thing gets shelved until after November when we hopefully will elect some real adults with the courage to push back against the mob – meaning many current GOPsters would need to be replaced.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Barnes Moore
July 30, 2022 9:46 am

Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s infamous “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” should have been a clarion call for a real insurrection. It is unbelievable a majority of voters, hearing that, didn’t rise up in righteous indignation to impeach and remove her from office. It is the total anthesis of our republican form of government, part of which is electing people to represent us in analyzing issues and acting in our behalf. A real, impartial media would have initiated a tsunami of recrimination.

Can you imagine a prior generation blandly accepting that crap? Instead we have a governing class and media that derides a Representative for asking for a rule change allowing members more time to read individual bills. Its like: “Your leaders have placed this in front of you. You will vote for it in lockstep. It does not matter what your constituents or your intellect tell you: You are just a cog in this monolithic machine.”

Last edited 19 days ago by Dave Fair
Tom Abbott
July 30, 2022 7:53 pm

Manchin may have presidential ambitions. Perhaps that is why he is planning on voting in favor of this new spending bill.

The Democrats have nobody with presidential qualifications. Manchin might think if he can get the radical Democrats on his side by voting for this new spending which includes spending on climate change, then he should be able to unite them with all the other Democrats and maybe that’s enough to get Manchin elected.

That would make sense because this new spending he is voting for will harm the people of West Virginia so maybe he’s not thinking of running in West Virginia any more, he’s thinking about a higher office.

Last edited 19 days ago by Tom Abbott
Wharfplank
August 1, 2022 8:20 am

Our enrgy policies should mirror those of Russia and the PRC. Anything else is suicide.

John Garrett
August 1, 2022 11:42 am

The more I read about this unholy spawn of Chuckie and Manchin, the less I like it.

It’s just more “tax and spend” chicanery with the usual flimsy revenue assumptions.

Let’s hope Krysten Sinema throws a spanner in the works.

Last edited 17 days ago by John Garrett
Yirgach
August 1, 2022 12:46 pm

Looks like the best thing this bill could do is lessen foreign product imports.
Given that refineries are running at 94% capacity any new production would offset foreign product. So prices would continue to rise due to increased demand, unless the St Croix refinery goes online again in 2023…

Any mention made of any new pipelines in place?

June Production

Last edited 17 days ago by Yirgach
%d bloggers like this: