What Signals Were Sent With the Election of Donald Trump?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the signals sent by Americans in the last presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump’s presidential victory sent some definite signals about the desires of American citizens. One signal was about the economy: the people believed that Trump could do a better job with the economy than could Kamala Harris. A second signal was about border security: again, American voters thought that Trump could do a better job of securing the border than could the Border Czar for the past three years. A third signal was about energy: the American people want affordable energy instead of the narratives pedaled by environmentalists. Jason Isaac of The Daily Signal wrote about the third signal. 

For decades, radical environmental groups like Greenpeace have bene employing apocalyptic rhetoric while offering so-called solutions that would make energy more expensive and make life worse for working-class Americans. This election was a rejection of that rhetoric and an embrace of common sense.

These environmental extremists tell us that Americans reject fossil fuels. But in the month before the election, polling found that 4 out of 5 swing-state voters believed that domestic oil and gas production could help lower energy costs for American consumers. Rising costs were a big concern for voters, and the cost of energy impacts everything from grocery bills to transportation.

Voters faced a clear choice between Trump, who enthusiastically embraced the “Drill, baby, drill” mantra, and Vice President Kamala Harris….

If Democrats learn anything from their electoral defeat, it should be that activist groups like Greenpeace actually speak for a small group of elites – not for the American people.

Unfortunately, Democrats have spent years being beholden to extremist environmentalists….  

These environmental activists claim to be speaking on behalf of the world, yet simultaneously ignore the global impacts of their actions. If they were paying attention, they would recognize that killing fossil fuel projects like refineries and pipelines in the United States does not stop them from being built. It merely ensures that they’ll be built in other countries with significantly weaker environmental policies than the United States.

One entity that does understand this dynamic is China, which has benefited greatly from the loud resistance efforts of Greenpeace and others. Without sufficient pipeline capacity in North America, Canadian oil that should be refined in the United States is often shipped to China instead. Crude oil processing hit record highs in China in 2023, and the country is expected to continue building out its refining capacity.

This Chinese refinery boom has led to China being a net exporter of diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil for the first time in the nation’s history. Because China lacks meaningful pollution controls, this increase is dangerous for the global environment. It’s also dangerous for the American economy, as this economic activity is benefiting the Chinese government rather than American companies and workers.

Meanwhile, the United States has become a global leader in environmental stewardship. Over the past five decades, we have reduced pollution by nearly 80%, achieving safe and clean air that’s only imaginable in other places round the world, while also being No. 1 in access to clean and safe drinking water. And we’ve done this while growing our energy production and our population, proving that we have responsible energy production that doesn’t compromise on environmental quality.

America is the most responsible energy producer on the planet, and the world needs more energy to eradicate poverty, not less. Access to affordable American energy could serve those in need far better than any alternative.

In spite of this, Greenpeace is doubling down on its own failures….