On March 8, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal posted an opinion column titled “Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo."
The column started with two important observations:
1) “President Biden made the right decision Tuesday in banning Russian oil and natural gas imports. Yet at the same time he declared 'full-steam' ahead on his green energy “transition” that includes an assault on U.S. fossil fuels. The contradiction is maddening.”
2) “Banning Russian energy imports is fine as far as it goes, which isn’t very. The U.S. imports only 3% of its petroleum supply and less than 1% of coal from Russia. About 70% of Russian oil currently can’t find buyers because of sanctions risk. That’s the main reason crude prices have shot up to $130 per barrel.”
If we analyze in a serious way the two paragraphs, we conclude that the decision to ban the “Russian oil and natural gas imports” is good. This was a very positive action in an administration that frequently doesn’t take decisions that can put Mr. Putin. in a bad mood.
The incoherence comes in the second step of the package: 1) to call Venezuela’s President Maduro for some supplies and the “poetic dream” of a fast transition to green energy.
The United States can solve the energetic problem nearly immediately if the Biden administration returns to the Canada-US pipeline.
In times of wars and hard moments, we have to put our idealist dreams in the “closet” and act with a pragmatic attitude. President Biden has the elements to move the country for the correct way, but due to his compromise with the “progressive” politicians of his party, he continues giving incoherent movements.
SOURCES: The Wall Street Journal, my own think tank
No comments:
Post a Comment