Obama’s War is not on Fossil Fuels

President Obama has just announced (but not yet published) his new plan, the so-called 21st Century Clean Transportation System. The centerpiece of this plan is a $10 per barrel tax on oil production by American companies, apparently both in the US and offshore. According to the press release, the proceeds will be spent on “clean transportation” projects, of varying degrees of absurdity and corruption. But the central justification for the plan is reducing what Obama calls “carbon pollution.” The background to this attack is that America is approaching oil self-sufficiency, thanks to the hard work and ingenuity of the workers, executives, and investors of the oil companies, who had to overcome not only natural difficulties, but also administration resistance and OPEC’s manipulations. The gas prices at the pump are at record lows. This is good for consumers, but risky for the oil companies. In the current regulatory and economic environment, many American oil companies face substantial financial challenges, so further costs might prompt the abandonment of oil wells and a return to the days of oil dependence and high gas prices. The proposed tax would cause just that – a series of bankruptcies and a curtailment of domestic oil production. Obama kicks American oil producers not just when they’re down, but when many of them are hanging over a precipice.

As Obama's cheerleaders in the NY Times enthusiastically acknowledge, the goal of the Obama schemes is nothing short of damaging American fuel production: “The latest climate change moves are aimed particularly at slowing fossil fuel production. Last month, the Interior Department announced plans to halt new leases of coal mines on public lands while it conducts a study that could result in higher fees for companies that extract coal on federal property.” At first glance, Obama is simply helping his OPEC friends (from Maduro in Venezuela to the Ayatollahs in Iran and King Salman of Saudi Arabia) to get rid of their American competitors. And it wouldn’t be the first time: just a year ago, Obama vetoed a bill approving the Keystone XL pipeline. But the full picture is even worse, as Obama’s intents reach much further. Energy extraction, conversion, and utilization are at the foundation of our civilization. Today, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Practically the whole transportation sector uses oil. Almost all electricity is generated from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power plants, and transmitted and distributed through the electrical grid. Wind, solar, and geothermal power cover less than 3% of total energy use, while coal alone provides 40% of our electricity. Coal power plants are also the least vulnerable to terrorism and acts of war. Obama has been suppressing all the major components of our energy infrastructure from his first day in the office, but coal power was singled out for total annihilation. He intensified this campaign in the run-up to the Paris Climate Conference (COP21). Since attending COP21 and meeting with representatives of hostile foreign governments and the Lebanon-based Climate Action Network, he has been taking drastic actions to destroy the American energy industry. His just-announced attack on oil production comes immediately after a hit on coal mining. What industry will be targeted next? An enemy waging war on the United States would attack exactly the same strategic targets, in almost exactly the same order: first oil, then power plants and the rest of the electrical infrastructure. This has been the experience in most modern wars from WWII until today. In the wars against Iraq (1990-1991) and Serbia (1999), for instance, the US used special graphite bombs specifically designed to bring down the enemy’s electrical power infrastructure for a short time. But while those weapons caused only temporary damage, Obama is targeting the American energy industry for permanent ruin. C3 (Communication, Command, and Control) are already controlled by Obama, and he occasionally shares them with foreign powers by allowing them to “hack” into government computer systems. Remember, scientific conclusions related to “climate change” are exactly opposite to what Obama claims: carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial, not harmful or dangerous. The claims of “scientific consensus” (or even of scientific justification of their policies) by Obama and the leftist and/or foreign media are based on semantic trickery: the term “climate change” has totally different meanings in different contexts, and is sometimes even meaningless. “Climate change” is frequently conflated with “anthropogenic climate change,” and the US contributes only about 15% of the current world carbon emissions anyway. The science is readily available. For examples, Professor Fred Singer and his Science & Environmental Policy Project have been posting weekly reviews of the relevant science and politics for 15 years. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen exposed alarmism in layman’s terms. Even scientists – Obama supporters, including Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever and famous Freeman Dyson, categorically rejected the climate pseudo-science. But Obama preferred listening to charlatans. His science czar John Holdren is a quack. He is best known for advocating the de-development of America, surrendering sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime", and some measures that are too disgusting to mention here. By his climate change actions, Obama and his administration de-develops America and surrenders its sovereignty to the UN agencies in the same time. Many commentators are relieved by the fact that Obama’s proposed legislation has no chance in the Republican-controlled Congress. It is a false hope – as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief, Obama has enough practical power to cripple the energy industries, defense, security, and anything else. The Constitution will not stop an administration that has nothing but contempt for the rule of law. Remember the unprecedented threat made by Obama against the People in the last State of the Union Address: “Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military … and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.” Obama’s climate change fight looks a lot like levying war against the Unites States of America. Ari Halperin researches and writes about climate alarmism as a complex and dangerous phenomenon.