Trump Delivers Energy Policy Wins

Trump trade deals energyAfter nearly a year in office, President Donald Trump has established an enviable record of restoring opportunity and unlocking the nation’s potential. One of his most obvious areas of success has been in the energy sector. For years, US leaders have talked about energy independence or energy security, but Trump thinks much bigger and advocates for “energy dominance.”

Earlier this year, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote an op-ed explaining what energy dominance means.

“An energy-dominant America means a self-reliant and secure nation, free from the geopolitical turmoil of other nations that seek to use energy as an economic weapon. An energy-dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence. Becoming energy dominant means that we are getting government out of the way so that we can share our energy wealth with developing nations.”

Interior Secretary Zinke has a key role to play in Trump’s efforts to increase US energy production. As Interior Secretary, he is responsible for managing hundreds of millions of acres of public lands and well over a billion acres offshore. According to the Department, 30% of the nation’s energy is produced in areas under its management. Fortunately, for consumers, the unemployed, and the underemployed, Zinke is intent upon implementing Trump’s energy and jobs agenda.

Shortly after his confirmation, Zinke lifted a moratorium on new coal-mining leases on federal lands, which had been put in place by the Obama Administration. This past summer, Zinke rescinded a rule that would have increased costs for companies that mine coal in federal lands. In October, the Interior Department announced the largest oil and gas lease sale in US history will take place next spring.

In addition to the work of his subordinates, Trump is personally taking action to move our country toward energy dominance. Responding to the wishes of Utah’s leaders, Trump slashed the size of two national monuments designated by two of his Democrat predecessors reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument by over 80% and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by nearly half. Both monuments contain vast quantities of natural resources.

Bill Clinton’s sudden designation of the 1.88 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996 enraged many Utahns. One of the reasons for this anger was that a company had been planning to create hundreds of coal-mining jobs there, which were, unsurprisingly, killed by the designation.

Barack Obama designated the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in the waning days of his Administration. As was the case with Grand Staircase-Escalante, elected officials in Utah disapproved of the establishment of Bears Ears.

Under Obama, leftists descended on North Dakota to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Administration delayed its construction. Shortly after Trump was sworn in, he signed a memorandum expediting the approval process for the pipeline. Within days, the US Army Corps of Engineers granted the necessary easement for the completion of the pipeline. Several months later, the pipeline was completed, tested, and opened for commercial operation.

Furthermore, Trump’s signature on the recently-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act bill will finally deliver another energy policy victory. For two decades, Republicans have fought to develop some of the energy resources in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and one of the provisions of the tax cut bill paves the way for that to occur.

Whether it can be tied directly to Trump’s policies or not, the energy sector is certainly seeing growth. For example, coal production is up 8%, and coal exports are up 68%. Domestic oil production is also up over last year, the International Energy Agency expects that US production will increase further next year, and oil exports are up by more than 56% over last year.

The past year has been filled with energy policy wins as Trump and his Administration have worked to deliver on his promises; and the best part is that the Administration is just getting started.

From - NetRightDaily - by Richard McCarty

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 years ago

Gee, energy independence, what a novel idea, who’d ever thought. We could have had energy independence in the 70s, 80s,90s, but no…. instead of thinking independence, we should take it a couple steps further. Meaning energy dominance. The United States could, through several ways, dominate the world market. We could force Opec, Russia, and others to sell their product at below market value simply by taking their business. We have endless resources available, we could keep this up by recouping trade deficits and UN cuts, and Nato cuts, and stopping the ridiculous welfare benefits to other countries.
I know, others could put it more elegantly, but in short, America First, and second, and third, etc. We are on the cusp of turning the tide here. Isn’t it a hoot, listening to all these whiner countries!
President Trump is kicking a$$, and Nicky’s taking names.
Look, no more Mr nice guy, America is the greatest. Its ok to deal thru strength. No to PC, finally, Europe’s in a tizzy, too bad. Our embassy in Jerusalem, cool. God Bless Donald!!!

5 years ago

Energy policy is probably one of the most glaring examples of the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Most Republicans realize that utilizing cheap, abundant, economically sound energy sources, no matter what they may be, is the surest way for a country to both sustain and grow its economy and the standard of living for its citizens. It is also a strategic national security issue in a world where more and more of the globe is littered with unstable or hostile governments, that pose a potential threat to our nation.

Democrats on the other hand, generally view energy policy as a means to artificially depress the economy and lower the standard of living for millions of citizens through the mandated use of higher priced, economically inefficient and intermittent energy sources. Thus using energy policy to expand the dependent class that relies on Democrat social welfare programs. Democrat energy policies also makes our national economy less competitive globally and more vulnerable from a strategic national security perspective. Their view, that our natural resources should be kept in the ground and never developed, helps to ensure a more depressed economy, lower job creation and a reduced standard of living. All essential to making the other Democrat policies that grow the social welfare state. Democrat policy is also that huge areas of the nation should be off limits to any sort of economic development and thus limit job growth. That what fossil fuels we are allowed to use under the Democrat energy policies, should be mostly imported from foreign countries around the world. Many of these foreign countries just happen to be either openly hostile to our values or hate our sovereignty. Thus Democrats are generally in favor of massively re-distributing our wealth to countries that may wish to harm us and make us more dependent on those countries. While at the same time providing funding to these regimes in those countries and weakening our own economy.

Many people will be hearing from various talking heads on TV in the coming weeks about the need for “bi-partisanship” and “compromise”. They will be talking about how things were 40, 50 or 60 years ago, when Republicans gave in to Democrats who controlled one or both houses of Congress. What they are asking the American people to do is tell their Republican representatives in Washington to capitulate to the demands of Democrats. To return to the failed policies of Obama, that gave us the weakest economy in decades. They will tell you that surrendering your conservative values, one more time, is somehow good for the country. That agreeing to the terms of a party that holds a fundamentally opposing view on virtually every major issue is somehow “good for the country”. How is a weaker economy, higher unemployment and a weakened military good for the country? Yes, it is good for the Democrats in Washington making money hand over fist, but what good does it do YOU? So hopefully the American people are not stupid enough to fall for that old Democrat ploy of “bi-partisanship” and “compromise” once again. The ONLY reason Trump managed to get as much done as he did in 2017, was that he did NOT capitulate to the Democrats. If Democrats truly want bi-partisanship, they can capitulate on THEIR values. Do I think they the Democrats will do that in 2018? Of course not. What would they stand for, if they were no longer the party of handouts and free stuff? If they ever did capitulate to President Trump in 2018, their voter base would be looking for their scalps. Their whole message to date has been RESIST Trump.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x