According to statements made by Joe Biden; is he going to ban fracking

Joe has made his position on fracking very clear --

Biden’s actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only. The vast majority of oil and gas does not come from federal lands.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...65739e36f4f82b Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not exactly. This is from the March 15, 2020 Democratic debate transcript:

Bernie Sanders: You cannot continue, as I understand Joe believes, to continue fracking, correct me if I’m wrong....

Joe Biden: No more, no new fracking. And by the way, on the Recovery Act, I was able to make sure we invested $90 billion in making sure we brought down the price of solar and wind, that is lower than the price of coal. That’s why not another new coal plant will be built.

Now, Biden's people went back later and said Biden only wants to ban fracking on federal lands. But that doesn't make sense, because his position is that no new drilling permits will be issued on federal lands. You frack wells after you drill them. If you don't drill wells, you don't frack.

I suspect, unlike the other top Democratic candidates, Biden and his team were forward thinking enough to recognize a fracking ban would hurt his chances in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Obama and Biden used to trumpet how oil and gas production had increased on their watch. This was the result of fracking. The increase in oil production reduced our trade deficit -- we didn't have to import as much from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And the increase in natural gas production, and its use in power plants in place of coal, reduced carbon emissions much more than solar and wind did. In fact, ironically, if Biden's right when he says we won't build another coal fired power plant, the main reason's not the $90 billion in taxpayer money which was in part squandered on boondoggles like Solyndra. The reason is that project economics for gas fired plants are much better than coal fired plants because fracking brought down the cost of natural gas. This is something Biden intends to undo in part by banning new natural gas wells on onshore federal lands and federal offshore leases.

In reading up a little on this, I got really pissed off about what Biden's intending to do with federal lands. I may start another thread on that, to avoid hijacking Why Yes I Do's poll.

The real crime is that everyone has abandoned nuclear.

Dems only give a shit about solar and wind because they're heavily invested in it and use it as a means to line their pockets with government porkbarrel funds.

You are a fervent football fan. Originally Posted by gnadfly

A zillion years ago, Giant's hosted Eagles for a playoff game at Meadowlands. Somehow...... I had a pair of very nice seats, even though everyone was standing the whole game. Hate the Eagles. Everyone from my old turf does. Last nights game was a wild rollercoaster.

Joe challenged Trump to post on his website where he said he would ban fracking.
Did you really think Trump would not take that bait?!?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1319491234042269696


C'mon M....

Joe-mentia Hiden and crew even talking at all about banning coal, oil, natural gas, fracking - fossil fuels writ large - with his son on the Board of Directors for an ENERGY company in Ukraine, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Talk about tone deaf idiocy...

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills

Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives...

1 min



Three words regarding Solar energy: Sol - Yn - Dra

Joe-mentia Hiden and crew even talking at all about banning coal, oil, natural gas, fracking - fossil fuels writ large - with his son on the Board of Directors for an ENERGY company in Ukraine, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Talk about tone deaf idiocy... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Hunter hasn't been on that Board since April, 2019. Joe wants to eventually move away from Fracking.. By 2035. He would not allow NEW permits on public land.

It's really that easy.

The real crime is that everyone has abandoned nuclear.

Dems only give a shit about solar and wind because they're heavily invested in it and use it as a means to line their pockets with government porkbarrel funds. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

nuclear hasn't been abandoned.

its being revived very slowly with push backs from insiders hostile to the idea. the trump administration is trying to get to the 5 year build plan by reducing unnecessary regulations that takes 10 - 20 years to build one. canada & s. korea build theirs within a 4 - 5 year time frame.

nuclear doesn't take up much land as compared to solar and wind and is much cleaner than those two technologies.

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills

Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives...

1 min


Three words regarding Solar energy: Sol - Yn - Dra Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

not solyndra... super fund.

where do you think the stuff they can't use after processing the needed chemicals and compounds needed for solar panels go?

wind and solar, they're not very green when you look under its hood.

both kill too many birds.

Hunter hasn't been on that Board since April, 2019. Joe wants to eventually move away from Fracking.. By 2035. He would not allow NEW permits on public land.

It's really that easy. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

thats still being a hypocrit.

But But the LSM is backing him walking back again , Big T takes everything outa context
Yeah okay joeys you idiot its WHAT YOU SAID

this is all smoke and dancing

ill put it this way

the issue is really this

and pa ,okla, ohio, texas and any other voter in these states pay attention

the questions are really this

what does a politician want to do, will do if the cards fall right and what can he say and throw in the air to confuse you so you have enough doubt about what he wants and will do and get you to vote for him when you are actually may be against it .

here are the facts

joe biden is a 47 year politician who loves power and money and could care less about what he has to do to get it and no matter what it costs you or the country

the group with the most power in the democrat party is the far left and joe will adopt anything thing that they believe and one of their strongest beliefs is climate change and the total elimination of fracking and fossil fuels


To throw out little pieces of the puzzle such as eliminating subsidies, no more federal land drilling are all pieces of a puzzle . Joe and the left are offering these for now to weasel you toward their goal and that is the the full puzzle, and without a doubt if the cards fall right they will eliminate all fracking and fossil fuels . That is what they want to do and if they get in they will work toward that goal for that is that is what the left wants more than anything.

Kinda like this

you have a cousin who never keeps his word , you know he gambles his money away but comes to you for a loan , he says the loan will be used to eat at the casino and wont be used to gamble at all or he will just play for ten minutes. The goal is to get you to accept him going in the casino but the real goal is to gamble it all away because that is most important to him and he knows you will never accept the truth. , eating and 10 minute gambling is a ruse to get him in the door .

joe if elected will do everything he can to eliminate fracking and fossil fuels no if ands or buts about it anything else is just smoke to get voters to not look at the issue but to look at joe !

If Trump ran the casino...different outcome.....

Disclosure: I have owned 2 Hybrid vehicles. Some things I liked, some not so much. Topic for another time. What I hate is when the batteries die. First, the standard battery is expensive at $400 (beefy glass mat variety). But the main drive batteries are $5K when they die. They are not cleanly recyclable or repairable.

Does hybrid car production waste offset hybrid benefits?

...The answer might surprise you. According to an in-depth study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, hybrid cars do, in fact, require more energy to produce than conventional cars, emitting more greenhouse gases and burning more fossil fuels during the manufacturing process. The production of hybrid batteries, in particular, requires much more energy than producing a standard car battery and results in higher emission levels of gases like sulfur oxide [source: Burnham et al].

But do the environmental impacts of hybrid vehicle production outweigh the long-term benefits of driving a cleaner running automobile? That answer is a resounding “no.” If you drive both a conventional and hybrid car for 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers), the conventional vehicle requires far more energy to operate and emits far more greenhouse gases over its lifetime, significantly canceling out any imbalance during the production stage [source: Burnham et al]...

not solyndra... super fund.

where do you think the stuff they can't use after processing the needed chemicals and compounds needed for solar panels go?

wind and solar, they're not very green when you look under its hood.

both kill too many birds. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

it has two sets of battery? lol.

how long do these batteries last between charges before its time to replace them?


I've never thought this large battery size design is really appropriate.

Disclosure: I have owned 2 Hybrid vehicles. Some things I liked, some not so much. Topic for another time. What I hate is when the batteries die. First, the standard battery is expensive at $400 (beefy glass mat variety). But the main drive batteries are $5K when they die. They are not cleanly recyclable or repairable.

Does hybrid car production waste offset hybrid benefits?

...The answer might surprise you. According to an in-depth study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, hybrid cars do, in fact, require more energy to produce than conventional cars, emitting more greenhouse gases and burning more fossil fuels during the manufacturing process. The production of hybrid batteries, in particular, requires much more energy than producing a standard car battery and results in higher emission levels of gases like sulfur oxide [source: Burnham et al].

But do the environmental impacts of hybrid vehicle production outweigh the long-term benefits of driving a cleaner running automobile? That answer is a resounding “no.” If you drive both a conventional and hybrid car for 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers), the conventional vehicle requires far more energy to operate and emits far more greenhouse gases over its lifetime, significantly canceling out any imbalance during the production stage [source: Burnham et al]... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do