Consequences

This is why people hold "fact checkers" in such low regard.
From: A 'fake news' fact check:
Trump did propose to buy 77 million barrels for the reserve in 2020 as oil prices cratered because of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the Democratic-controlled Congress rejected the $3 billion in funding that would have paid for the purchase, describing it as a subsidy to big oil companies.

People forget that Presidents don't actually spend money.
They CAN yank petrol out of the SPR as an administrative function (like low poll numbers!) but even this gets a little complicated between routine 'exchanges' sales and purchases.

Between 2016 and 2020 the SPR levels were______ and ______
There was less oil in the SPR in 2020 than in 2016 if one can believe dot.gov.
P45 is and always has been a 'story teller.'
People who flop and twitch when he says "s" are something else....

Anyway.
Back to the SPR...
How much is there NOW?

You can forget history, but history doesn't forget ANYTHING.
https://www.energy.gov/ceser/history-spr-releases

Notice anything 'interesting' with the DOE site?
(If not, keep watching cat videos and placing your trust in MSM....)

 

Exactly! I started closely following weather in the mid-1960s (at which time, I started to subscribed to the "Daily Weather Map" issued by the U.S. Weather Bureau (now National Weather Service) , so I do have some perspective on changes in extreme events over the past ~60 years. Variability in weather events has not noticeably changed over those years based in my personal experience.

There are also other factors involved with flooding other than just extreme rainfall rates. Metropolitan areas continue to expand, along with the impervious surfaces that accompany them. This potentially greatly increases runoff.

Even Gavin Schmidt, a leading proponent of catastrophic AGW, doesn't think there's any compelling evidence of weather getting progressively more extreme...

…'According to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, that misperception makes the study's findings "not a particularly dramatic result."

"General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media," Schmidt said. "It's this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that's nonsense."'…

Source: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985592

That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but embellishing every "extreme" weather event doesn't really help either.

 

It helps ME out quite a bit.
I can be convinced about things like oceanic acidification, or wildlife proliferation, migration and changes in the urban-wilderness interface.
But WEATHER?

I immediately put them in the 'ignore their credibility' file.
I LISTEN, because while iron sharpens iron, you can use leather or even denim for stropping -

 

agreed, and that's a big if

 

excellent economics, poor environmentalism

 

acronym overload or just not paying close enough attention to the issue? SPR ? RMD ? (while looking up spr ) I got a hint from an 8 month old news olds story about the "High Prices force Biden to cancel SPR purchase" blah - who nees oil, right? Saudi got it, right? Oh well we can't have it all and eat it too, can we? or can we ? Maybe what we need is a DubAI (pun intended) class city in this country. Wouldn't we all love paying for that?

 

See playing Craps with loaded dice by @bwilson4web in this post above: Consequences | PriusChat