GOP Rep: Climate Politics Weakens US Energy, Security.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong: Climate Politics Hurts U.S. Energy Capacity and National Security

Environmental Policies and Waiting Times Make Energy Projects Riskier

During a virtual forum at the Hudson Institute on energy policy, Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) explained how climate politics is weakening the United States. Environmentalist policies and long waiting times for government approvals make it riskier to begin construction on new fossil fuel infrastructure, which in turn makes it more difficult for manufacturers to collect investor funding. Armstrong dismissed the unrealistic goals of “transitioning” away from traditional energy sources and criticized environmentalists’ goal of “outsourcing their guilt” over carbon emissions to other countries, which only hurts the environment and U.S. national security.

• Under current federal law, firms can be forced to wait a decade or more before gaining approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to undertake new energy projects.
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) attempted to lead an effort to overhaul fossil fuel permitting over concerted opposition from the left wing of his party. Now, through their H.R. 1 energy bill, Republicans are seeking similar reforms.
• Armstrong’s home state of North Dakota is a major source of energy production, and he contrasted federal policy with North Dakota policy throughout the panel.

Climate Politics Disincentivizes Production and Investment

Armstrong explained that the prevalence of environmentalist politics in discourse today means it’s riskier for firms to attempt new energy projects, thus disincentivizing energy production. Often, these projects can take as much as a decade with federal regulation and red tape. As many presidential candidates mount campaigns opposing the expansion of energy production, raising capital is difficult. Armstrong said that environmentalists intentionally used politics to “starve off the investment forum” by increasing the risk of such projects.

• Since taking office, President Joe Biden announced a goal of reducing U.S. emissions by around 50 percent by 2030.
• In the meantime, he has sought to carry out a goal of “transitioning” the United States away from traditional energy sources toward renewable sources like solar and wind power.
• Armstrong noted that while drilling for oil is important, it’s only the first step in the life of energy—new energy sources also need to be discovered, refined, and moved across the country.

‘Outsourcing Our Guilt’ Enables Western Adversaries

Armstrong said that much of U.S. climate policy today involves “outsourcing our guilt” about climate emissions but noted that this policy is a danger to Western national security and the environment. American oil is easily some of the cleanest in the world, undergoing stringent environmental requirements. By comparison, other major oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia have far dirtier oil. Nevertheless, Armstrong noted, “The U.S. is the only country in the world, essentially, that’s lowered its climate emissions.”

• In an effort to lower gas prices for consumers, Biden withdrew millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a reserve of oil designed to be used in case of wars, natural disasters, or other national emergencies.
• Even as he’s drained the SPR, Biden has made no move to incentivize further oil production so the reserve can be replenished.
• Armstrong noted that there is also a litany of national security concerns for the United States and its allies in pursuing these policies.

Armstrong emphasized that we need to get a policy based on the reality of what it’s going to take to drive the world and lead the U.S. economy over the next 50 years and not have an ideological environmental policy that’s really based on outsourcing our guilt.