martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,824
- 34,199
- 2,300
How does Biden feel about fracking? Monday Joe said “he would not ban fracking”, much different then the positions claimed in the past. Which way is the wind blowing next week?
If you listened to more than sound bites then you might better understand this stuff
Not too much to understand here. Did Biden say he'd get rid of fracking or didn't he? What his he saying today?
Not for the near future. He has a plan to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 but that is dependent on the development of green energy. As for fracking the only thing he has said is that he wouldn’t approve new permits on federal land. 90% of fracking is done on private land so it wasn’t a very substantial policy. Like with most issues there are many complex elements. You can’t simply listen to talking points and sound bites
No, I watched the video in the OP where one of the segments he said he would end all fossil fuel. I don't know if you know this or not, but fracking is part of obtaining fossil fuel.
Yes he wants to end it by 2050 as green energy infrastructure gets developed and can replace it. I think I said that in my last post
Democrat presidential debate:
Question: Would there be anyplace for fossil fuels, like coal and fracking IN A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.
Answer: No, we would work it out. It would be eliminated.
The question was not about future administrations, it was about his administration. In his administration, as Joe said, it would be eliminated. He can't eliminate it in 2050 because not only would his administration be long gone, but so will Joe.
A President cannot set policy for future administrations. Each administration has their own policies.
Almost all presidents have plans that project out a decade or more. Biden has all the details on his fracking stance and environmental plans on his website. Why don’t you read that instead of putting all your eggs on a one sentence answer during a debate?
For one, I don't want to fall asleep at my computer. Two, those are plans created by his handlers and not Biden. What Biden says live is more honest as he has no time to think or have his planners answer for him. He speaks in his own words.
I don't know how much you know about fracking, but it works like this: They drill holes in the ground, and turn those drills horizontal so as to be able to drill sideways, and create a lot of new tunnels from that one hole going straight down into the ground.
Even with all those horizontal tunnels, they can only drill so far, meaning that once all the energy is extracted from those tunnels, they have to pack up and go somewhere else to start the process all over again.
If they cannot get permits for the next site, they can no longer drill. That means as these sites get exhausted, those are the last sites they will be able to drill on.
Bottom line is that if by some miracle Biden wins the presidency, and even if he doesn't stop all fracking immediately, our sources to get new energy will be depleted. As we use up those spots, and can't go to more, less and less energy gets produced. The less energy that gets produced, the higher the costs go because the commodities investors are always looking for signs to invest their money properly for profit.
You realize that only 10% of fracking is done on federal land right? You don’t think we are smart enough to get off fossil fuels in 30 years?
It has nothing to do with being smart enough, it has to do with it being economical enough. We can turn the country green tomorrow, if you want to pay five times the amount of money for energy that we do today.
The US currently produces around 4.5 million barrels of oil per year. What is 10% of that?
That's not to mention that even on private land, EPA regulations have to be followed; regulations that can be influenced by a President based on his goals.
Cool cool. Do you think we are smart enough to get off fossil fuel in a more economical way in the next 30 years?
I'm not a Democrat, therefore I don't claim to see into the future. In a 100 years? Perhaps. Again, it isn't about being smart enough. It would have been smart for Henry Ford to put fuel injection in his Model-T, but we didn't have nearly that kind of technology yet.
Currently, there is no substitute that delivers the reliability and power fossil fuels provide. Wind mills, solar panels, all nice, but expensive and very weak. CA is now trying to encourage their citizens to conserve energy so they don't have yet another major blackout. It doesn't work.
You have to let technological improvements happen on their own time. It's something you cannot force. One cannot say they want to be totally green by 2050 when they don't even know what kind of advancements will be made by that time. It's like the government in 1930 saying they want to see cell phones and internet by the year 1950.
Tech improvements happen by setting goals and priorities. We put a man on the moon. We didn’t do that because all of a sudden somebody found a space shuttle. Look where tech was 30 years ago and look at it now
Putting a man on the moon didn't require me to give up my ICE car for an electric, or require brown outs due to stupid power generation governmental restrictions, or constant whining about how the world will end if I run my AC a few degrees cooler.
It happened through steps, focus and progression. The same thing with the plan to get off fossil fuels and utilize cleaner energy sources so we can better treat our environment
No, right now it goes through force. Ban ICE vehicles, reduce availible power when the grid can't get enough supply, ban people from installing gas lines into new houses for appliances. Ban certain light bulbs, force crazy fuel economy standards, shut down streets to make traffic worse for cars, and the list goes on.
Government didn't need to ban horses to get people to use motor vehicles, it happened because motor vehicles were the superior product.
Horses weren’t destroying our environment and killing people
have you ever seen the pictures of streets when horses were the primary means of transport?
And it figures you have to go to hyperbole to make your point.
And the environment is not being destroyed by carbon, at worst the climate is changing, and humans can change with it.
Lol, OR PEOPLE WILL DIEEEEEEEEEEE
People have died from toxic building materials, polluted water, and air pollution is said to have been responsible for over 4 million deaths a year. I’m not being hyperbolic
it shouldn’t be a partisan thing to want to take care of our environment
Those are actual tangible impacts that have actual tangible rectifying solutions. I've worked in water and wastewater treatment for years.
The political aspect is having to implement Marxism to fix climate change, a situation that cannot truly be measured for success of failure, but evidently we have to give government ALL THE POWER or we'sa gonna die!!!!
You’re taking an extreme interpretation of it. In reality the plan that the Dems are presenting is overkill and the stance of the Reps is wholly inadequate. If we could be grown ups and actually talk about the best solutions to a common goal then perhaps we could do something. But as things stand now we can’t even agree on the common goal. How sad is that?!
Because the threat being lauded by the left of AGW is a made up threat designed for them to get the government and control they want.
How do you find a solution to Unicorn attacks if there are no such thing as Unicorns?
Do you even try to find common ground? Say that maybe you and the Left both care about the environment and Want to do what we can to reduce pollution and keep our world as clean as possible?? Or is it just, the Left is evil and fighting to control us??
A lot of people on the left just see AGW as an excuse to get their system in place. Sorry but I can't trust people who think government can solve everything, people have to give up freedom for some nefarious nebulous threat, and that only the plebes have to suffer for the sacrifice to Gaia.
