U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent announcement of a $7 billion investment in green energy initiatives, unveiled on Earth Day 2024, has reignited the ongoing debate over the purported “war on fossil fuels.” The move has drawn intense criticism from former Trump-era economic and energy experts, who argue that such policies are causing significant disruptions across various fronts.
The criticism emerged after the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) celebrated Earth Day 2024 with $7 billion in grants for low-income communities. The initiative aims to provide solar energy access to over 900,000 households, enabling low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar, according to a press release from the EPA.
Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief of staff Mandy Gunasekara voiced concerns over what she perceives as the Biden administration’s unwavering commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Gunasekara lamented the adverse effects of these policies on national security and economic development, emphasizing the need for a future characterized by energy growth and dominance rather than scarcity.
More Read
“We’ve seen this blind allegiance by the Biden administration to the war on fossil fuels,” Gunasekara said on Fox Business’s “Varney & Co.” “Unfortunately, Team Biden is so committed to propping up these inferior technologies, it’s causing all sorts of havoc on the national security front, but also the economic development front, and it is limiting the development of the very energy resources that we need.”
Similarly, former Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore echoed these sentiments, expressing frustration over the potential consequences of continued restrictions on traditional energy sources. Moore emphasized the importance of embracing an all-inclusive energy policy to capitalize on the nation’s abundant energy resources and drive down prices.
“If we continue to shut down coal plants, not allow LNG terminals, not build nuclear power plants, you’re right,” Moore told Fox Business’s Stuart Varney. “But we have the capacity to lower our energy prices by an all-in energy policy. If I sound a little frustrated, I am, because we have more energy than any other country in the world.”
Gunasekara and Moore argued that the Biden administration’s focus on promoting renewable energy technologies is exacerbating existing challenges rather than addressing them effectively. Gunasekara criticized the subsidization of what she referred to as “inferior technologies,” asserting that it undermines the development of more reliable and efficient energy resources.
“What would make sense is letting the market determine which technology should actually take off. And they keep subsidizing inferior technologies, which undermines the development of the very technologies and the resources that we know how to use quite well,” Gunasekara said while reacting to the multi-billion-dollar investment in green energy.
Moore supported this assertion, claiming that states heavily reliant on solar and wind power tend to experience significantly higher utility bills compared to those utilizing nuclear power, natural gas, and coal.
“If you look at the states that have high requirements for solar and wind power, their utility bills are about twice as high as states that get their electric power from nuclear power, natural gas, and coal. So solar and wind power don’t save money,” he said. “This is the reason that the government has to keep flushing dollars into their very inefficient ways of getting electric power accepted.”
The debate extended beyond environmental concerns, with both Gunasekara and Moore emphasizing the broader implications for national security and economic prosperity. Gunasekara emphasized the transformative impact of responsibly harnessing natural resources, drawing from her own experiences in communities where industries like oil and gas have facilitated growth.
“I’m from a small town where oil and gas actually gave that community an opportunity to grow. I’ve seen it firsthand, and I don’t care about the ‘deep state.’ I’m not scared of them,” Gunasekara said. “And if I go back in there, I’m going to do what’s right by the American people and what the president of the United States expects. And if it’s President Donald Trump, we know that he expects a future of energy dominance and how to actually get there.”
Moore echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the strategic importance of energy independence in international relations. He also speculated on the potential geopolitical advantage of a return to policies focused on expanding domestic fossil fuel production, suggesting that increased output could lead to a reduction in global oil prices.
“Do you think the Saudis want Donald Trump back in the White House? Do you think Putin wants Trump back in the White House when his first policy, and I guarantee you, I’ve talked to the president many times about this, the first thing we’re going to do is drill and drill and drill, produce more oil, gas, and coal?” he said. “That’s going to reduce the price of oil.”
