Biden did NOT slip up with "transition from oil."

[yellowcanine]

It was calculated that he will win more votes than he loses. Look at the huge early turnout of the 18-29 cohort. You think they were disappointed to hear that? No, quite the opposite. I think even in Texas he wins more than he loses based on the huge turnout there of young people. And Florida? The focal point of global warming and sea rise? For sure he wins more than he loses. And those losses, he never had them anyway.

[yardwork]

1. Global warming is the #1 issue for a lot of voters.

[DonaldsRump]

2. Very astute way of looking at this n/t

[Phoenix61]

3. Most of the coastal states are against offshore

drilling. They know it’s not “if” there’s another Deepwater Horizon spill it’s “when.” Crashing their tourism and fishing industries will hurt their economy more than adding oil will help it.

[yellowcanine]

4. Yep. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, California, etc.

He may even have picked up some votes in Louisiana.

[Phoenix61]

11. Yep, anyone who cares about the bayous knows

the oil industry is not helping them.

[Politicub]

43. People in rural NC used to be anti-fracking. I don't know when

they became so pro.

I don’t believe people are as bullish about fracking as the GOP wishes to believe.

[mopinko]

5. these days there is more wind in tx than oil.

and those still in it have gone broke, mostly.
many more than once.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Probably earned him a few far left votes who might normally stay out.

[yellowcanine]

7. Also Green Party folks I think.

[Demsrule86]

13. I doubt it. Green Party folks hate Democrats. They don't give a damn about the

environment...their party should be named like this...$Green$Party$....since they take money from the GOP to spoil elections for Democrats...fuck them a thousand times. They are a large part of the reason, we have three GOP justices.

[yellowcanine]

19. Talking about voters who sometimes vote GP.

The ones who threw the election to Trump. You are right about the GP itself. It stands for nothing. All talk.

[JonLP24]

22. Why is there more focus on Green Party voters than Obama-Trump voters?

Obama-Trump voters are the ones that actually voted for Trump and they showed they're capable of voting for the Democrat.

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump
Hint: It has to do with race.

One of the most puzzling elements of the 2016 election, at least for a lot of Americans, was the millions of voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016. Somewhere between 6.7 million and 9.2 million Americans switched this way; given that the 2016 election was decided by 40,000 votes, it’s fair to say that Obama-Trump switchers were one of the key reasons that Hillary Clinton lost.

(Snip)

“Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story,” the New York Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on the night of the election. This typically segues into an argument that Trump won by tapping into economic, rather than racial, anxiety — anger about trade and the decline of manufacturing, or the fallout from the 2008 Great Recession.

A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.

“White voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes switched votes to Trump at a higher rate than those with more liberal views on these issues,” the paper’s authors write. “We find little evidence that economic dislocation and marginality were significantly related to vote switching in 2016.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm

Personally I blame triangulation and the Third Way for GP voters.

[yellowcanine]

27. I think that is a "unknown known" as Rummy would say.

Or is it an "known unknown?".

[pandr32]

34. Sexism as well

Even here I grew tired of posts saying Hillary wasn't warm enough, she sounded shrill, she was beholden to Wall Street, she couldn't be trusted, etc.
I don't see those same remarks about Joe.
I voted for HRC and JB.

[JonLP24]

10. Their "radical left" campaign always encourages me to vote for Democrats

They did the same thing with Sinema who is on the Manchin wing of the party. They tried to portray her as "far left" as possible and it only made me want to vote for her but I'm very disappointed Sinema voted to confirm Barr.

[JI7]

25. No, people who care about these issues are already voting for him

[Demsrule86]

8. It is also the right thing to do...how refreshing to have a candidate who says what he means

and means what he says...doesn't poll everything. Obama was like that too.

[Sherman A1]

9. K&R

[PubliusEnigma]

12. Biden is right for the same reason that Tesla is the most valuable car company on Earth.

It's the Way of the Future, and the People know it.

[yellowcanine]

20. Tesla even puts solar panels on cars.

[paleotn]

36. Bing, Bing, Bing! We have a winnaa!!

[modrepub]

14. It Just Reflects Reality On the Ground

The internal combustion engine has been around for a hundred years. The auto market is converting to EVs over the next decade or so. Even the electric grid operators recognize this. The economics are driving this, though regulation can help steer things and smooth out the rough edges when these changes occur.

Biden would be well served by promoting the off-shore wind projects off the NE coast that are currently in the planning stages. If and when those projects come online there are going to be some seismic shifts in how electricity is made and consumed. Building these projects and infrastructure will probably more than offset job losses in the oil and gas sector. Coal has been in decline since after WW I as has oil (in the electric generating sector). Creative distractions via Schumpeter, can not be stopped.

[Duppers]

41. And when you have these monster ⛽ guzzlers

...now turning to EV power & SELLING OUT, there IS indeed a movement.






https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-unveils-its-gmc-hummer-ev-the-first-fully-electric-pickup/

[Shermann]

15. It's just another statement blown out of proportion

It's no different than the defund the police straw man.

But it could be articulated better. Why not say that Americans deserve an alternative to the fossil fuel monopoly? Isn't that entirely compatible with Republican/capitalist ideals? The economics show that solar can already be competitive with natural gas in certain markets, and can certainly beat coal. The writing is on the wall. You can make a case that this is the direction and government subsidies and initiatives to put us out in front are fully justified. No we don't want to prop up a "windmill fantasy" model that can't stand on its own legs. No we don't want to destabilize the country's energy infrastructure.

[yellowcanine]

21. Articulated fine. "Transition" means slowly change.

He should change his language because an ignorant Trump jumps on it? I don't think so.

[Shermann]

24. You are right...let's not leverage contradictory positions in the Republican platform nt

[Southern lefty]

16. It's no secret,

That we need to go in that direction and he is the one to bring us there. I don't see an issue 🤷

[roamer65]

17. There is NO wealth on a dead planet.

None. ZERO.

[Duppers]

39. Exactly! +1000

[StarfishSaver]

18. This "Biden made a gaffe" is part of the same old "we must kiss the asses of a certain demographic"

that we're always hearing. For some reason, the media seem to believe that, no matter what, the white male "working class" must be catered to at all costs and if they demand that weremain in the dark ages so they can keep their coal mining and oil dredging jobs because their daddies and granddaddies did that work, then, dammit, that's what we'd better do - and any politician who tries to drag them into the 21st Century with the vast majority of the rest of the country is making a huuge mistake.

[karynnj]

23. I agree

A position where he completely accepted fracking forever is contrary to almost all Democratic positions and the need to eliminate fossil fuels - the sooner the better. It also is unlikely to win any pro fracking votes in Pennsylvania - if that is their single issue, they will know that Trump is more likely to stick with that position. Not to mention, a PA poll showed that the majority STATEWIDE is against fracking. The people concern trolling - including some on MSNBC, speaking to people in an area with a fracking company - are speaking to the minority.

As to going further towards no fracking, Biden's position is politically well balanced and it follows science. It allows that we may need natural gas as a transition rule for many years. However, it is obvious that the length of time the transition will need will depend on how successful supporting research and subsidies for the cost of transition to clean energy is. The faster we move to clean energy, the faster we cut the demand for natural gas. As that demand decreases, the profitability of fracking decreases. I do not know the relative costs for different sources of natural gas, but it might be that it would become non economic. (Given the environmental costs that are now ignored, if this source is cheaper but has higher environmental costs, it could be possible to add a tax to compensate people affected by the damage - simultaneously making it cost more. (like tobacco))

Economics alone has eliminated (or near eliminated - I have read both) coal as the source of electric power. There are many areas that already have all their electricity generated by clean energy. However, there are many areas that could lower their carbon footprint by converting an oil (or coal, if any exist) power plant to natural gas - some of which comes from fracking. Developing a smart national electricity grid would be an important step to accomplishing the shift to clean electricity generation throughout the country. It would provide a faster transition from oil or natural gas power plants to clean energy especially if solar/wind etc is subsidized -- and all fossil fuel subsidies end.

However, another area where natural gas is used is to heat homes. Also consider all the electric ranges, clothes dryers, fireplaces, grills etc.

[JI7]

26. He should say he isn't going to let other countries get all the renewables business deals

that it would leave the US out and behind.

The focus should be on how it's about us getting something and not letting others get it also.

And then say something like how China will get all that business even it could have been American workers .

[NNadir]

28. As a general statement, it is needed, however...

...it is crystal clear, and irrefutable, that so called "renewable energy" has not, is not, and will not replace dangerous fossil fuels.

The massive world wide investment in so called "renewable energy" - on a trillion dollar scale - has only accelerated the use of dangerous fossil fuels.

Saying this, however, is politically unwise at this moment. If the goal is to eliminate dangerous fossil fuels, it is technologically feasible to do so, but it will require very different thinking than what is popular in the public imagination.

As Biden is rising to the occasion and is demonstrating that he has to be a great President, I expect he will face reality with respect to the means of phasing out dangerous fossil fuels. It will take courage, but clearly he doesn't lack it.

[kurtcagle]

32. Biden's Framing

One of the key techniques that the oil industry uses when arguing against alternative energy is the idea that no one AE can replace oil. That is true, but it is also misleading. If you have electrified, interchangeable systems in place, a spectrum of sources including oil can be used together to meet most needs. Move towards electric cars and light trucks, you don't eliminate the use of oil outright, but you are freer to mix power generated from wind, LNG, nuclear, or geothermal coupling into the mix. This pushes oil production into places where you need it more: heavy equipment and jet fuel that can best utilize the combo of power and portability that oil provides

None of this is news to energy engineers. What is killing oil companies is the fear of leaving a secured but diminishing market for a potentially larger but riskier one.

[NNadir]

38. Electricity is a thermodynamically degraded form of energy.

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2020, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

It is not primary energy, any more than hydrogen is primary energy. Storing electricity further thermodynamically degrades it, and is sure to be an environmental disaster of the first order. The massive use of batteries, in cars and elsewhere, while exceedingly popular, is proving to be environmentally tragic already. It is only going to get worse; although there is tragedy enough associated with it, specifically with respect to cobalt mining, but in many other areas as well.

The key to sustainable energy is to eliminate the number of steps and transformations involved in its high density, low mass, fast availability. The cleanest possible - and in my view the only sustainable - energy transformation will involve very high temperature nuclear energy, coupled to thermochemistry. Ideas advanced in the 1950's and 1960's towards this end did not succeed mostly because of materials science limitations. It is now possible to overcome these issues given what we have discovered in materials science in the last half a century.

So called "renewable energy" - including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, blah, blah, blah is not sustainable on a planet with seven or more billion people on it, particularly when more than half of them live in appalling poverty. The energy to mass ratio is appallingly low, and thus dependent on massive mining that cannot possibly be sustained for more than a few decades, if that. Steel is still made by coal based coke reductions.

In any case, there is a reason that "renewable energy" was abandoned in the 19th century, with a world population that was much smaller and far less energy intensive than that of modern times. That reason is that the overwhelming majority of human beings lived short miserable lives of dire poverty. All of the reactionary rhetoric handed out in the late 20th century and the early 21st century by my distracted and indifferent fantasy embracing generation cannot change that fact.

Facts matter.

The key to sustainability is high energy to mass ratios, and, paradoxically in many minds, meeting human development goals, which has the happy effect of reducing the replacement rate of human beings. It is technologically feasible to do this, but repeating mantras will not do it. It will not be easy and it will not be cheap but for a committed generation of clear thinkers, it is doable.

Biden is not a scientist, but he is campaigning on listening to them. I expect great things from a Biden Presidency, and I hope that he will do something along the lines of what Obama did early in administration, which is to get someone of the caliber of Steven Chu to evaluate the engineering and scientific tasks required in this dire emergency. Chu was definitely on the right track, but I think he got demoralized at some point. Scientists are, and always will be, creatures of their culture, and one still reads lots of scientific papers on so called "renewable energy" and many more that genuflect toward it before getting to the real point. However, ultimately science is involved in staring down reality, and after several decades, I'm seeing that very clearly.

[Sogo]

29. Good points!

[colorado_ufo]

30. He said full transition would be achieved by 2050.

Don't these oil/gas/coal fans get that most of them will probably be retired or dead by then? How short-sighted can you get? Do they think 50 or 100 years from now we can stay with the same putt-putt gas burning cars and millions of gallons of fuel in planes and ships that gets dumped into the air and oceans? Think how special that would be in a 100 years!

[bucolic_frolic]

31. That's right, b/c owners, backers, workers of oil-based industries are a minority, just like the GOP

Just like the NRA. They use legal power, marketing muscle to push things on the rest of us.

[Tom Rivers]

33. I'm not sure I understand why it was "controversial"

The Democratic platform and Joe's position has been for years that fossil fuels will not be here forever and that we're going to fall behind if we don't make these investments now. "Transition" is not an overnight thing, it's been regularly conveyed that a full transition is several decades away and oil and gas jobs are not going away for quite a while. Most of the major oil companies see the writing on the wall and have already invested in a renewable future. It may not be what everyone wants to hear and it may cost some votes in certain places but I'd rather prepare for the future now than pretend these industries will be here forever. I come from a coal state and a lot of people are still upset because they failed to prepare for a life without coal.

[Shermann]

37. I'm skeptical of these "investments" by the oil companies

I've seen the ads by the American Petroleum Institute. Why advertise such a thing so heavily? I don't have the numbers, but I suspect it's largely window dressing meant to improve their public image.

People will say, "oh yeah, I saw that the energy companies are working on that."

[paleotn]

35. He would only lose....

those who aren't going to vote for him anyway. So the loss is zero. The gain? The number is real, but hard to calculate.

[Bettie]

40. Anyone with even a little common sense knows

that eventually we will need to transition away from fossil fuels.

It is inevitable. It is a finite resource.

Pretending it doesn't need to happen doesn't make it not true.

[Midnight Writer]

42. Green energy is inevitable. We as a country can either lead, or buy the technology from others.