Joe Biden lies about his position on Fracking during campaign stop.

[Nostra]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Anything done right is fine.
We just need to ensure that whoever is maintaining the permits knows their business and isn't being bribed.

It's a failed model. Just political garbage now.

Then nobody will invest and it will go away on it's own.

And it will. They are all bankrupt or deeply in debt. So why do republicans champion a failed business model? Just political garbage.

All fracking companies are bankrupt?

Gotta link to that?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

The better question is, even if we had a government to do all the things you want, how would you stop other countries from polluting? They are polluting at a much higher rate then we are, and unless you say we need to go to war to stop them, they are going to keep on dirtying up the environment. They want to be just as successful as the US. They can't do it being clean.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

Nice attempt at expanding my viewpoint from limited government to no government, but failed you have.

As for government always standing up for the Environment, how was Soviet Russia's track record on environmental issues?

And setting standards is one thing, trying to eliminate some industries via regulation is another.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

The better question is, even if we had a government to do all the things you want, how would you stop other countries from polluting? They are polluting at a much higher rate then we are, and unless you say we need to go to war to stop them, they are going to keep on dirtying up the environment. They want to be just as successful as the US. They can't do it being clean.

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

Nice attempt at expanding my viewpoint from limited government to no government, but failed you have.

As for government always standing up for the Environment, how was Soviet Russia's track record on environmental issues?

And setting standards is one thing, trying to eliminate some industries via regulation is another.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

Nice attempt at expanding my viewpoint from limited government to no government, but failed you have.

As for government always standing up for the Environment, how was Soviet Russia's track record on environmental issues?

And setting standards is one thing, trying to eliminate some industries via regulation is another.

Why are you asking about Soviet Russia? Here in America we have a democracy and a Government that is designed to represent the will of the people. A Socialist or Communist government like what Russia has and had is not much different than a large corporation.

You dodged my question though, If you don't trust government to address the abuse of our environment then who do you expect to stand up for it and how would they do it?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Kinda like trumpers thinking government tariffs are going to solve everything?

Not everything, just China treating us like a bitch when it comes to trade.

Unfair practices, copyright infringement, government sanctioned lowering of costs, the list piles up.

Well you sure picked a loser. So far the trump tariffs hurt farming leading to a big farmer bailout. Steel is in bad shape with lots of layoffs. Oh and manufacturing hurt too.

 

[Brain357]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

All the Paris accord did was give other countries the means to control our industry. You want that?

How do you limit the business our companies do with another country? We can't do that now. We have no control over what other countries do, only our own. It's fruitless for us to dump trillions of dollars to cleanup our country when other countries will continue doing business as usual.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Business is out to make money not be stewards of the environment. We have seen throughout history time and time again examples of how companies have destroyed, polluted and compromised the health of both our people and our land. The government is the only power to set standards and intervene to protect the land that we live on. If not the government then how do you expect to stand up to the corporations that are being irresponsible with the environment?

Nice attempt at expanding my viewpoint from limited government to no government, but failed you have.

As for government always standing up for the Environment, how was Soviet Russia's track record on environmental issues?

And setting standards is one thing, trying to eliminate some industries via regulation is another.

Why are you asking about Soviet Russia? Here in America we have a democracy and a Government that is designed to represent the will of the people. A Socialist or Communist government like what Russia has and had is not much different than a large corporation.

You dodged my question though, If you don't trust government to address the abuse of our environment then who do you expect to stand up for it and how would they do it?

Here in America we have a democracy

No stupid, we have a Representative Republic.

 

[Nostra]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

 

[Brain357]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

Not hard to find.

U.S. energy bankruptcy surge continues on credit, oil-price squeeze

Another 16 U.S. energy firms filed for protection from creditors last month, reflecting crude oil prices below levels that are profitable for many companies, according to a report by law firm Haynes and Boone on Tuesday.

mobile.reuters.com

 

[Nostra]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

Not hard to find.

U.S. energy bankruptcy surge continues on credit, oil-price squeeze

Another 16 U.S. energy firms filed for protection from creditors last month, reflecting crude oil prices below levels that are profitable for many companies, according to a report by law firm Haynes and Boone on Tuesday.

mobile.reuters.com

50 since March? You are so fucking stupid you think 50 oil and gas firms make up all "frackers"?

Thanks for proving you are a lying sack of shit and a complete moron.

 

[Brain357]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

Not hard to find.

U.S. energy bankruptcy surge continues on credit, oil-price squeeze

Another 16 U.S. energy firms filed for protection from creditors last month, reflecting crude oil prices below levels that are profitable for many companies, according to a report by law firm Haynes and Boone on Tuesday.

mobile.reuters.com

50 since March? You are so fucking stupid you think 50 oil and gas firms make up all "frackers"?

Thanks for proving you are a lying sack of shit and a complete moron.

Just since March sure makes them sound successful. Nothing like debt and bankruptcy.

 

[Nostra]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

Not hard to find.

U.S. energy bankruptcy surge continues on credit, oil-price squeeze

Another 16 U.S. energy firms filed for protection from creditors last month, reflecting crude oil prices below levels that are profitable for many companies, according to a report by law firm Haynes and Boone on Tuesday.

mobile.reuters.com

50 since March? You are so fucking stupid you think 50 oil and gas firms make up all "frackers"?

Thanks for proving you are a lying sack of shit and a complete moron.

Just since March sure makes them sound successful. Nothing like debt and bankruptcy.

Nothing like you getting caught in a blatant lie.

 

[Slade3200]

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

All the Paris accord did was give other countries the means to control our industry. You want that?

How do you limit the business our companies do with another country? We can't do that now. We have no control over what other countries do, only our own. It's fruitless for us to dump trillions of dollars to cleanup our country when other countries will continue doing business as usual.

Typically when you have the leaders of the worlds major countries coming together and signing an agreement it means you are in communication and actively working to attain goals. Thats how you work together to make a difference. Trump trampled all over that with two agreements. Do you understand what that does to our countries credibility?! Unbelievably irresponsible.

 

[Nostra]

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

All the Paris accord did was give other countries the means to control our industry. You want that?

How do you limit the business our companies do with another country? We can't do that now. We have no control over what other countries do, only our own. It's fruitless for us to dump trillions of dollars to cleanup our country when other countries will continue doing business as usual.

Typically when you have the leaders of the worlds major countries coming together and signing an agreement it means you are in communication and actively working to attain goals. Thats how you work together to make a difference. Trump trampled all over that with two agreements. Do you understand what that does to our countries credibility?! Unbelievably irresponsible.

Barry circumvented the Constitution to get his "Iran deal", which is why it amounted to nothing more than another of his useless Executive Orders, not a Treaty.

That demonstrates what a shitty leader Barry was, and how he loved to ignore the Constitution for his own personal aggrandizement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

All the Paris accord did was give other countries the means to control our industry. You want that?

How do you limit the business our companies do with another country? We can't do that now. We have no control over what other countries do, only our own. It's fruitless for us to dump trillions of dollars to cleanup our country when other countries will continue doing business as usual.

Typically when you have the leaders of the worlds major countries coming together and signing an agreement it means you are in communication and actively working to attain goals. Thats how you work together to make a difference. Trump trampled all over that with two agreements. Do you understand what that does to our countries credibility?! Unbelievably irresponsible.

And what was Iran doing? They continued to work on their nukes. They were in violation of the agreement within the first two weeks. The bogus Paris accord didn't have any regulations on China for 20 years while we in the meantime were supposed to abide by what it wanted us to do immediately.

Are you so naive to these agreements in the past that you actually think both countries are honest enough to follow them? What did the USSR and Russia do with our nuclear agreements. They signed it, shook hands, and as soon as our backs were turned, laughed all the way to the bathroom where they used the agreements for toilet paper.

But oh! A agreement on pollution reduction will work Ray!

 

[Brain357]

The real question is why do so many righties love fracking? We already saw how quickly the frackers are run out of business.

Ran out of business? That's news to me. Fracking is the most active industry we have. Why do we righties love fracking? Because fracking floods the market with energy. When the market is flooded with energy, prices drop. When prices of energy drop, that gives Americans more disposable income. When Americans have more disposable income, it stimulates the economy because they spend it.

I went by my local gas station today. Gas is at $1.89. Mind you, when our new governor took office, he placed a 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline to support road infrastructure.

Fracking is nothing more than a more expensive way of releasing gas and oil for economical processing. The only reason they go out of production (often not business) is that easier to extract fields are found and temporarily reduce the value of crude/gas. It still is an economical way of increasing reserves which lowers costs overall.

Frackers are all deeply in debt or bankrupt.

Link us up to where all frackers are deeple in debt or bankrupt.

I called you out yesterday when you lied about all of them being bankrupt. Now you have changed your story, but it is still all lies.

Not hard to find.

U.S. energy bankruptcy surge continues on credit, oil-price squeeze

Another 16 U.S. energy firms filed for protection from creditors last month, reflecting crude oil prices below levels that are profitable for many companies, according to a report by law firm Haynes and Boone on Tuesday.

mobile.reuters.com

50 since March? You are so fucking stupid you think 50 oil and gas firms make up all "frackers"?

Thanks for proving you are a lying sack of shit and a complete moron.

Just since March sure makes them sound successful. Nothing like debt and bankruptcy.

Nothing like you getting caught in a blatant lie.

No blatant lie, they are garbage companies that are either bankrupt or deeply in debt.

 

[Brain357]

Why is that a better question? When you are teaching your kid manners is it a better question for him to ask how you're going to teach the neighbors kids manners?

You start by taking care of your own responsibilities. Moving from there... You can limit the business you do with other countries based on environmental and humanitarian standards. You can also develop technology that is cleaner and cheaper for other countries to adopt. Obama had a climate accord where the worlds largest countries were communicating and setting goals. Trump shit on it. Way to go Mr douchbag president.

All the Paris accord did was give other countries the means to control our industry. You want that?

How do you limit the business our companies do with another country? We can't do that now. We have no control over what other countries do, only our own. It's fruitless for us to dump trillions of dollars to cleanup our country when other countries will continue doing business as usual.

Typically when you have the leaders of the worlds major countries coming together and signing an agreement it means you are in communication and actively working to attain goals. Thats how you work together to make a difference. Trump trampled all over that with two agreements. Do you understand what that does to our countries credibility?! Unbelievably irresponsible.

And what was Iran doing? They continued to work on their nukes. They were in violation of the agreement within the first two weeks. The bogus Paris accord didn't have any regulations on China for 20 years while we in the meantime were supposed to abide by what it wanted us to do immediately.

Are you so naive to these agreements in the past that you actually think both countries are honest enough to follow them? What did the USSR and Russia do with our nuclear agreements. They signed it, shook hands, and as soon as our backs were turned, laughed all the way to the bathroom where they used the agreements for toilet paper.

But oh! A agreement on pollution reduction will work Ray!

View attachment 386639

Bet they are working faster now.