A May 4th New York Times opinion piece pleads with Democrats to abandon their War on Big Oil. But can the party quit its obsession with undermining the industry?
Arnab Datta, a former advisor to the Biden White House on energy policies, argues Trump’s policies are bad for energy dominance. He believes this can create an opening for Democrats to reclaim goodwill with oil and gas workers and executives.
Datta wrote, “Democrats have a tricky line to walk, balancing climate priorities and energy security. But they can chart a new course if they stop treating domestic oil and gas production as a liability.”
Whose posturing should they model? Former President Barack Obama is supposedly the oil and gas industry’s best Democratic friend. But was Obama pro-oil and gas, as Datta claims? Hardly. If you lived through the Obama years, it was his administration that supercharged net-zero, discouraged oil and gas leases, banned coal production on federal lands, and catalyzed gimmicky green energy subsidies through the 2009 stimulus.
Obama also bragged about boosting oil and gas production during his two terms. But even FactCheck.org said market forces and surge of natural gas production attributed to fracking - not Obama’s climate-first energy policies - drove production.
POLITICO wrote in 2015 that Obama was waging a “quiet war” on oil. That was true. Lest we forget he canceled drilling opportunities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), among his many rules. Like his vice president, Obama banned other new offshore drilling opportunities too. The House Natural Resources Committee documented every Obama-era executive action and regulation here, hardly confirming Obama’s pro-oil and gas bonafides.
Another point of contention is arguing net-zero climate policies are compatible with oil and gas production. These two goals couldn’t be more at odds with one another.
Datta added, “This doesn’t mean adopting a mindless 'drill, baby, drill' mentality; it’s about recognizing that domestic oil and gas companies deliver geopolitical value and economic benefits by keeping the world less reliant on Russia and OPEC. The industry can also help accelerate decarbonization with innovation and financial might.”
Net-zero’s ultimate goal is to put oil and gas out of business. Don’t take my word for it; that’s what the United Nations’ Paris Climate Accords and every related net-zero pledge call for.
The U.N. claims net-zero will be achieved this way: “Replacing polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from renewable sources, such as wind or solar, would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.”
But wait, there’s more! IEA echoes these claims, stating, “Net zero means huge declines in the use of coal, oil and gas. This requires steps such as halting sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars by 2035, and phasing out all unabated coal and oil power plants by 2040.”
This is why environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing - intertwined with net-zero decarbonization goals - is failing. In fact, oil and gas companies that foolishly went along with these pledges have backpedaled and, ultimately, scaled up oil and gas production. What’s the reason? A low return-on-investment.
In February, BP announced a “strategic reset” of their investment strategy, pivoting from net-zero to “reallocating capital expenditure to our highest-returning businesses to drive growth, and relentlessly pursuing performance improvements and cost efficiency.”
Shell’s Q1 2025 adjusted earnings report showed investments in oil and gas were manifold times higher than their renewable investment portfolio.
Wells Fargo ditched net-zero posturing as an investment strategy in March.
BP, Shell, and Wells Fargo weren’t alone. Dozens of energy and financial companies are humming a more pro-oil and gas tune. Yet, many elected Democrats have yet to play catch up.
Datta ends his article by suggesting Democrats “can be the party of reliable energy, robust domestic production and decarbonization — but only if they embrace an agenda that responds to the complexity of the moment with steadiness. The opportunity is there to lead, to grow and to govern in a time when it is so desperately lacking.”
Decarbonization puts renewable sources, such as wind and solar, above oil, gas, and even nuclear energy. An inconvenient truth is solar and wind power are unreliable and intermittent–working optimally for 25% and 35% of the year, respectively. Therefore, you can’t credibly claim solar and wind are reliable. That’s a pipe dream. Not to mention their atrocious land footprint is hardly green.
American favorability of the Democrat Party is at historic lows. Recent polls show Trump is slightly more popular than his political opponents on the other side of the aisle. So what edge do they have on energy, if Americans don’t trust them overall?
I applaud Mr. Datta for recognizing oil and gas in our energy mix, but he misses its importance in everyday life even beyond production. Nevertheless, clinging onto net-zero is a losing economic and political position–one that undermines energy abundance, reliability, and security.
