It’s not making headlines now, but don’t think for a moment that the Green New Deal isn’t still a big deal.
Right now, it’s a big deal theoretically speaking. But should Senator Joe Biden win the U.S. presidential election, it could become a reality.
For those of you who somehow missed the hullabaloo last February when Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, here’s CNN’s explanation of it at the time:
“‘Green New Deal’ fits perfectly on a bumper sticker.
“But the proposal isn’t a simple fix for what ails the U.S. It would equal taking American society back to the drawing board and rebuilding it from the safety net up.
“As written, it is more a list of ideas and ideals than an actual proposal, although the new climate change regulations it suggests could run to $1 trillion.
“What was entered as official legislative language on Capitol Hill declares the government should take a stronger position on everything from cutting carbon emissions to giving every American a job to working with family farmers to retrofitting every building in the country.
“Here’s a look at some passages that stuck out in the 14-page resolution and what they might mean for the country.”
Again, that’s published on CNN. And, as far as I can tell, the author – Zachary B. Wolf – is a full-fledged stereotypical CNN writer who supports liberal platforms and proudly promotes them. At least his record of recent articles strongly indicates as much.
Though I’ll let you be the judge of that by mentioning some of them in our next segment.
I Wish These Were Unfounded Conspiracy Theories
I’m not trying to be offensive with anything I said above or will say below. I’m making a point about the Green New Deal and how it will affect investments and investing if implemented.
In order to do that, I’m making sure to cite analysis as far away from Fox News and other such sources as possible for anyone inclined to think I’m drinking some kind of conservative Kool-Aid.
With that in mind, here’s some more Wolf writings:
- On October 1, he denounced “President Donald Trump” for spreading “unfounded conspiracy theories about voter fraud.”
- On October 6, he wrote an article titled “Pay attention to these headlines rather than Trump’s anti-reality.”
- On October 13, he worried about “the great likelihood that [Amy Coney] Barrett “will join her conservative colleagues in rewriting U.S. abortion law.”
Creds checked and verified. He’s blue to the bone.
Yet he still noted that the GND’s proposal to meet 100% “of the power in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” in the next 10 years – the actual proposal’s language, by the way – “would be a wholesale turnaround in U.S. energy.” As of last February:
“Renewables – including hydroelectric, wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal – currently account for 20% of U.S. energy production, about on par with nuclear energy as outlined by the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Natural Gas accounts for the largest share – about 32% – and coal isn’t far behind, at 30%.”
Yet, within the space of a decade, a society that’s exceptionally dependent on oil and gas – for better or worse – will have none of it. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Easy conclusion: We’ll go green, alright, though only because the entire economy collapses under the ridiculous regulations. And it goes without saying that anyone working for oil, fracking, and midstream companies will find themselves looking for new employment.
Moving down the list of disconcerting aspects Wolf addresses is the resolution’s call to upgrade “all existing buildings in the United States and [build] new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
Again, that’s in the next 10 years.
About that enthusiastic agenda, Wolf writes: “Without having to Google, we know there are a LOT of buildings in the U.S… and no one knows what it would cost to make them all ‘green.’”
Easy conclusion: The writers of the bill have no idea what they’re talking about. For that matter, they have no actual understanding of reality.
Neither do their fellow supporters in Congress, and that’s the charitable evaluation. It’s either that or they’re deliberately trying to destroy the U.S. with unachievable plans and unfathomable amounts of spending.
This definitely includes Kamala Harris, who was “a supporter and original co-sponsor,” according to her own press release. I know what she said during the vice-presidential debates about how, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.”
But even if that were true, what about under a Kamala Harris presidency should anything happen to Biden? That’s not an idle concern.
Biden Blows Hot and Cold on Fracking and the Oil Industry
Besides, Biden himself has said one thing on the issue… and then said another. For instance, during the first presidential debate, he flat-out stated that he doesn’t support the GND. Yet his website states that he “believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”
His supporters would say there’s a difference between a framework and full support, which could be true. But in that case, he needs to clarify his stance. Because, right now, his site has the following statement that “The United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge.”
Since I quoted CNN right from the start, it only seems fair to let me use Fox News for a moment, especially when everything it states can be easily verified:
“During a 2019 Democratic primary debate, Biden was asked whether there would be ‘any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration.’
“Biden’s response: ‘No, we would – we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either – any fossil fuel.’
“During Thursday’s [presidential] debate, Trump pressed Biden on whether he would shut down the oil industry.
“‘I would transition from the oil industry, yes,’ Biden responded.”
Again, die-hard supporters can make their arguments that he clarified his statement after that. But that was only after the moderator prompted him to.
As such, anyone involved in the oil and gas industry – fracking included – should be getting extremely nervous right about now, to say the least.
Their investors too.
An Investor’s Conclusion
In line with Trump’s last four years in office, a second term for him would likely mean a continued focus on energy independence and less restrictive environmental regulations for the industry, specifically utilities.
The Affordable Clean Energy rule, which Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency put into place in 2019 and which allows states to develop their own plans for limiting regulation, would continue to govern emission standards.
Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in June 2017, a decision that would likely hold if he serves a second term.
As Anne Slattery, Senior Analyst at RSM explains. “a Biden win would mean that oil and gas companies across the energy value chain will need to shift their focus and rethink their strategy in order to survive long term.
If Trump is elected to a second term, we do not expect any major, immediate changes in the energy policy landscape. Whatever the result of the election, though, it is crucial for companies to focus on emission goals and sustainability.”
With several high-quality MLPs trading at historic lows, we know the value proposition that exits, while the concept behind the Green New Deal is an Oil Industry-Hating mess!