Small businesses throughout Pennsylvania have faced many hardships over the past few years, ranging from supply-chain bottlenecks to overbearing bureaucratic mandates. And the toll has not gone unnoticed, as evidenced by President Joe Biden’s visit to the state shortly after taking office. 

During his March 2021 visit, President Biden noted that some 400,000 businesses in the state were facing closure. His policies, however, have not helped: the administration’s 2023 budget proposal does little to alleviate burdens for Pennsylvania business owners. 

In fact, the Biden administration has called for increasing taxes on residents and businesses even though Pennsylvanians already pay one of the nation’s highest tax rates. Higher gasoline prices are also likely, given that Biden is pushing new energy regulations that will inhibit alternative energy supply. Gas prices in Pennsylvania are already among the highest in the U.S., and state residents’ home heating billshit record highs at the end of last year.

All of this explains why the state’s natural gas reserves should be leveraged. A recent Wall Street Journal article credits natural gas for keeping energy bills manageable during this hot summer; and for Pennsylvania residents, natural gas is beneficial not only for lowering energy costs but also for driving economic growth. Pennsylvania’s total natural gas storage capacity is the fourth-largest in the nation, at about 763 billion cubic feet, and fracking generates substantial economic spillover effects, providing jobs and investment opportunities.

In addition to infringing upon energy supply, the Biden administration is also interfering with private business deals – most recently within the gaming sector, another important industry for Pennsylvania. 

Recently, Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Kahn, sought to block Microsoft’s acquisition of game developer Activision-Blizzard. Fortunately, the FTC’s case fell short in court, and Microsoft’s Xbox users can look forward to better options when subscribing to its Game Pass plans.

The Microsoft-Activision deal improves gaming choices for consumers and also helps elevate Microsoft’s status in the global gaming market. Tencent, headquartered in China, and Sony, based in Japan, presently dominate the gaming realm.

Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision-Blizzard is an important step for Pennsylvania’s economy since, according to Fortune magazine, Pennsylvania is one of the top 10 states for video-game development. The state’s gaming sector is thought to be worth over $80 million locally. It is alarming that Khan and the Biden administration sought to stifle America’s competitiveness in this sector, especially when international jurisdictions greenlighted the transaction. When the EU is a better champion for an American firm’s aspirations than our own federal government, something is clearly amiss.

Thanks in part to such restrictive economic policies, Pennsylvania now ranks 44 out of 50 in business environment for economic growth. And, according to the 2023 State Business Tax Climate Index, the state ranks 42 out of 50 for corporate taxes and 33 out of 50 for tax rates overall. Heading into the 2024 presidential election, the Biden administration should recognize Pennsylvania’s political importance and ease regulatory restrictions to allow the state’s residents to prosper.

Originally published here

Gas stove bans made headlines earlier this year, and caused significant uproar. Over concerns about climate change, and air quality, the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission hinted that gas stoves are dangerous and could be banned. Although the Commission later walked those comments back, the debate over gas stoves unfolded, and now New York State has set the table for a gas stove phase out, eliminating these appliances from being built in new residential buildings.  

As it stands right now, 3 states, and 26 cities have passed gas stove phase out plans, while 20 states have banned such bans, preemptively stopping cities from creating “all electric” building codes. 

But the war over your kitchen appliances doesn’t end with gas stoves.

In fact, Maine, through proposed regulations on PFAS, are taking the debate over appliances to the next level. PFAS are man made chemicals, used in a variety of products like microchips, medical devices, waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware. These chemicals can pose a threat to consumers, depending on the circumstances, with the most famous instance being when Dupont criminally dumped these chemicals into water sources.  Maine, in an attempt to limit exposure to PFAS, irrespective of consumer risk, is set to enact a ban on all products which contain intentionally added PFAS by 2030.

Sounds good right? No one wants the products in their homes to be dangerous to our health. It certainly seems like a good idea if all you consider are the headlines, or even worse the rants of late night comedian John Oliver. But, as with everything, the devil is in the details, because as it stands now, most of your appliances in your kitchen would be banned in Maine if nothing changes to the legislation.

Yes, you read that right. Pretty much every appliance you have in your kitchen relies on PFAS in some way shape or form. And ironically, for legislators at least, the use of PFAS in these circumstances are not just better for the environment, but they present no risk for consumer health.

Take refrigerators for example. Modern fridges use HFO (hydrofluoroolefin), which is technically PFAS, and would be subject to the ban in Maine. This is, to put it mildly, a disaster in the making.

The use of HFO for fridges is a huge net benefit for consumer safety and the environment. Historically, refrigeration was only possible by using ammonia and methyl chloride, which are toxic to humans. Understandably that is concerning. 

Then, as technology advanced, refrigeration was made possible by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but those heavily depleted the ozone. Another big problem. That paved the way for HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in the 1990s, which still depleted the ozone, then HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) but those significantly contributed to global warming. That is where HFO came into use, which not only have no ozone-depleting potential, but they also represent 0.1% of the Global Warming Potential of previously used HFCs. They’re also low in toxicity and generally non-flammable. 

This is undeniably an upgrade from the days of ammonia cooling, which if humans are exposed to is toxic, causes severe skin burns, and is toxic to aquatic life.

Now supporters of the ban celebrate this as a win, citing that refrigeration can be done with “natural refrigerants”, i.e. CO2 or ammonia. For ammonia, there are good reasons why industry moved on decades ago, as already mentioned. And for CO2, well that isn’t a net benefit for the environment. Target, for example, compared two models for refrigeration, one using HFCs (which have high global warming potential), and one using CO2, and found that the CO2 fridges used 20% more energy. And for systems that use modern HFOs, they found an average annual decrease in energy consumption of 3% when compared to systems using HFCs. The idea that these refrigerants are viable alternatives to the modern use of HFO’s just doesn’t hold up, certainly not if climate change or consumer safety is a serious priority. Legislators need to avoid falling for a naturalistic fallacy.

But now, if lawmakers in Maine have their way, modern fridges are just not an option anymore, and reverting to older technologies like the ones listed above carry a huge list of potential dangers. 

The war over gas stoves was just the beginning. If more states like Maine go rogue creating opaque rules, consumers are in for a world of pain. Everyday items like fridges, or air conditioning units, will have to revert to the dangerous chemicals of distant memory, giving consumers poorer products that are potentially risky.

Originally published here

According to studies on motivation, autonomy, mastery, and purpose are key driversof human behavior. And those embodying an entrepreneurial mindset will capitalize on their desire to create by leveraging networks and opportunities as they arise from the marketplace.

Consumer interests and consumption patterns serve as powerful signals regarding what is of value, and economic pressures ensure that what is pursued is worth producing.

Unfortunately, some innovations are being demanded by politicians, not markets. Take, for example, advancements in electric and battery-powered tools. Such machinery has been gaining significant traction over the past few decades, as iterations and adjustments have occurred through learning by doing.

Major benefits of battery-powered equipment include reduced noise and reduced emissions. As such, for landscapers, battery-powered leaf blowers seem to be an intriguing option. These types of blowers improve working conditions (no need for ear protection or concerns for breathing gas fumes all day), improve workflow (no concerns with disturbances at odd hours), and appease customers who are environmentally conscious.

The disadvantages, however, still outweigh the positives, given that battery blowers are less effective and rather costly compared to those that are gas-powered. For the time being, battery blowers only make sense for homeowners with light maintenance needs.

Be that as it may, industry interests and product improvements are creating incentives for battery options to become the standard choice over time, but government officials are demanding that the time for change is now.

It’s been a little over a year since the District of Columbia phased out gas blowers due to both noise and air pollution. Cities and states have gotten into the act too, banning gas-powered leaf blowers despite the fact that battery-powered blowers increase costs to both landscapers and their customers. Moreover, inefficient leaf cleanup can also create environmental costs due to storm water management matters.

Read the full text here

In the Alpine nation of Austria , where I currently live, residents are receiving the euro equivalent of $490 as a ” climate and anti-inflation ” bonus.

This will be a godsend for those struggling with rocketing European energy prices and sustained inflation . Other European nations are doing the same, as well as more than a dozen U.S. states. But doling out millions of dollars without increased economic production will likely do more to ratchet up inflation than minimize it. The Federal Reserve admitted as much in July. It certainly won’t expedite the end of the energy crisis.

WHO BLEW UP THE NORD STREAM PIPELINES, AND HOW WILL WE FIND OUT?

What “anti-inflation” payouts represent, then, are failed energy policies. European coal plants are being fired up after years offline. LNG terminal projects in Finland and Italy are being greenlit to speed up imports. Germany’s last three nuclear power plants, set to be decommissioned this year, are receiving a second life as politicians concede the errors of the zero-carbon narrative. In the last decade, German leaders heralded the shutdown of nuclear, subsidies for solar and wind, and imports of wood pellets from southern U.S. forests as “renewable” energy. They fired up dormant coal facilities to fill the gap while Russian natural gas became the primary means of energy.

It was a sweet deal upended only by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was followed by international condemnation and energy sanctions. With Nord Stream pipelines out of the picture ( sabotaged by whom, we may never know ), German politicians are left championing coal and absconding their distaste for nuclear energy.

German energy policy, known as Energiewende, was already acknowledged as a failure. Swapping domestic nuclear power for Vladimir Putin’s gas meant Germans could boast about the 35% renewable energy mix to global praise. But that Faustian bargain has left German leaders scrambling for energy alternatives from Western liberal democracies and Arab dictatorships to fill Russia’s void. Such a glaring failure should give pause to the green ambitions of America’s political class. Instead, the Democratic Party has chosen the same trodden path.

In passing the Inflation Reduction Act without a single GOP vote, Democrats offered their energy antidote: subsidies and taxes. This includes a 30% tax rebate on efficient home upgrades and solar batteries, a $7,500 tax credit for new electric cars, and higher taxes on oil producers, costs inevitably passed on to consumers. Democratic state attorneys general are filing lawsuits against oil and gas firms for their “deceptive” roles in contributing to climate change, using shady legal footing to attempt to extract large settlements. On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, he killed off the multibillion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported Canadian and American oil to Texas for export.

Last week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) prodded leading bank CEOs into committing to “stop funding new oil and gas products” to reach America’s climate goals. Each declined. The response of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was even more brazen: “Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America.”

Our current climate policies are setting us up for more pain, depriving consumers of future stable and diverse energy supplies and leaving our allies high and dry. Making our energy more sustainable is a noble goal, one consumers care about. But considering the European dilemma, sacrificing domestic energy production a la Energiewende would, as Dimon put it, be the road to hell for America.

Our country can both be a climate leader and energy producer, but that requires boosting and diversifying energy sources rather than restricting them. It means unleashing American innovation and entrepreneurship to deliver solutions rather than platitudes. Our consumers deserve better, and so do those on the European continent.

Originally published here

Les Etats-Unis doivent augmenter radicalement leur production de pétrole, non seulement pour le bien des Américains, mais aussi pour apporter un soutien stratégique à ses alliés.

Dans un rare moment de lucidité, Emmanuel Macron, lors du sommet du G7 au mois de juin, s’est manifesté devant Joe Biden pour lui expliquer à quel point l’Europe a besoin de pétrole. « Désolé de vous interrompre », s’est interposé en s’excusant Macron devant les caméras. Les chefs d’Etats et de gouvernement étaient au point d’entrer dans un bâtiment, donc le moment était bien choisi : même si Macron chuchotait, l’intérêt était bien que nous entendions l’échange.

Macron explique qu’il a récemment échangé avec des responsables des Emirats arabes unis, qui lui ont assuré qu’ils étaient pratiquement au maximum de leurs capacités de production (si nous choisissons de les croire). Avec l’ambition de sortir de la dépendance énergétique russe, la réalité pour l’Europe est qu’il y a tout simplement un manque d’approvisionnement. L’hiver prochain, les prix de l’énergie devraient battre des records, même ceux qui ont déjà été battus plus tôt cette année.

De petites promesses

L’appel tacite de Macron à l’égard de Biden est clair : pourquoi les Etats-Unis ne fournissent-ils pas plus de pétrole au monde, alors qu’ils en ont clairement la capacité ?

Lors de sa récente escapade à Bruxelles, Biden s’est tenu aux côtés de la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, et a annoncé la création d’un groupe de travail conjoint visant à réduire la dépendance de l’UE à l’égard du gaz russe « aussi rapidement que possible », promettant jusqu’à 15 milliards de mètres cubes de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) américain d’ici la fin de l’année et jusqu’à 50 milliards de mètres cubes par an à la fin de la décennie.

Curieusement, Biden a simultanément promis de rendre ces engagements compatibles avec un objectif d’émissions nettes nulles, mais malgré cela, l’annonce est une bonne nouvelle. Les importations américaines de GNL en Europe aident à combler le fossé qui sépare l’Europe des autres importateurs du monde entier.

En ce qui concerne l’essence, la folie écologique de Biden est plus intense, ce qui entrave les niveaux de production nécessaires pour commencer à penser aux exportations. En fait, l’administration Biden a rendu trop difficile le forage du pétrole : les permis de forage pétrolier ont été réduits de plus de moitié depuis l’arrivée de Joe Biden au pouvoir. Joe Biden a déclaré que les compagnies pétrolières devraient être encouragées à augmenter leur capacité, mais l’industrie a riposté en accusant l’administration de retarder ses activités.

Joe Biden est confronté à une décision qui marquera sa présidence dans les livres d’histoire. Dans le but de rallier l’aile écologiste de son propre parti, il a choisi d’étoffer son administration avec des personnalités qui souhaitent la disparition totale de l’industrie des combustibles fossiles.

Tout doit disparaître

Saule Omarova, à un moment donnée candidate de Biden pour le Bureau du contrôleur de la monnaie, a déclaré à propos des entreprises de combustibles fossiles que « un grand nombre des petits acteurs de cette industrie vont probablement faire faillite. Du moins, nous voulons qu’ils fassent faillite si nous voulons nous attaquer au changement climatique ».

Omarova, qui est née au Kazahkstan à l’époque où le pays faisait partie de l’Union soviétique, avait par ailleurs tweeté en 2019 : « Dites ce que vous voulez de l’ex URSS, il n’y avait pas d’écart de rémunération entre les sexes là-bas. Le marché ne sait pas toujours ce qui est le mieux. »

Elle était donc devenue non viable pour l’administration Biden, vraisemblablement parce qu’elle a révélé la vérité au grand public.

Des nouvelles récentes soulignent que ce n’est qu’en juin que la production pétrolière des Etats-Unis a atteint les niveaux pré-pandémiques. C’est clairement insuffisant pour ce que représente actuellement la demande mondiale. Cela dit, les Etats-Unis ont fait quelques efforts pour fournir à l’Europe des réserves de pétrole supplémentaires.

En avril, plusieurs superpétroliers ont acheminé plus de 2 millions de barils vers l’Europe. L’Europe doit donc adresser ses demandes directement à la caméra, et être claire quant aux implications des parties : L’Europe et les États-Unis devraient mettre en veilleuse toutes leurs ambitions en matière de climat, raffiner davantage de pétrole et coopérer pour l’acheminer rapidement et efficacement.

Pour qu’un embargo énergétique russe fonctionne à long terme (et, compte tenu des circonstances actuelles, il devra fonctionner à long terme), les deux blocs n’ont essentiellement pas d’autre choix. Aucune transition énergétique verte, même si nous la croyons faisable et recommandable, ne peut s’activer assez rapidement pour nous permettre de passer les prochaines années, sans parler de l’hiver à venir.

Les Etats-Unis doivent augmenter radicalement leur production de pétrole, non seulement pour le bien des Américains, mais aussi pour apporter un soutien stratégique à ses alliés. S’il existe un moment où les réserves pétrolières américaines constituent un avantage vital, que ce soit pour lutter contre la baisse du pouvoir d’achat ou pour montrer sa force géopolitique, c’est maintenant.

Originally published here

In the traditional American view of self-government, we prefer decision-making to be as local as possible.

Government works best when decisions are made closest to those affected, whether at the city, municipal, or state level, depending on the question. This makes democratic accountability easier and lets states and municipalities become “laboratories of democracy,” competing among themselves in a kind of marketplace for citizens. For example, the hefty regulations and taxes imposed on Californiaresidents are a key reason why so many Californians are seeking refuge in Texas or Florida.

But what about larger governing questions involving energy policies and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? That’s the question currently burning in state courts throughout the country.

A number of Democratic-run states, counties, and cities have filed lawsuits against oil and gas industries, attempting to extract large settlements for the “harm” caused by emissions, often in friendly courts where they know judges are keen to rule in their favor. But if we’re imposing additional costs on companies for providing us with the energy used to power our homes and cars, costs that will ultimately be passed to consumers, should state judges be the ultimate deciders?

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that “global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. As a result, it calls for the application of federal common law, not state law.” In contrast, the notoriously left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s climate suits belong in state courts. It’s predictable what those state rulings will be: ones that cost all of us energy consumers dearly.

We should be cautious of sweeping state judicial decisions on energy policies, especially as inflation continues to rise, robbing us of more of our income.

If these lawsuits continue — and each should obviously be evaluated on its individual merits — they belong in federal courts. National energy policy should not be decided by a patchwork of state and local courts that will, inevitably, apply the law inconsistently.

This concern is made even more clear by the flagrant hypocrisy of the White House’s recent attempts to squeeze oil and gas companies. President Joe Biden is demanding cuts in prices and increases in production while severely curtailing new drilling contracts. All the while, Democratic state attorneys general are trying to sue energy companies for emissions.

We need federal courts to deliver decisions that adhere to the Constitution.

Originally published here