Joe Biden and Donald Trump on energy - two sides of the same coin

Biden axed the Keystone pipeline expansion after TC Energy spent $8 billion on the project. What was the result? About $8 billion down the drain, and fewer jobs and less investment in the USA. A lot of oil that would have been refined in the USA flowed to western and eastern Canada instead. What a ridiculous waste!

Now Trump's axing a wind energy project offshore New York. The developer, Equinor, will take a hit of $4 billion to $4.5 billion. We can argue whether that project deserves subsidies (I don't think so) or whether it would produce economic returns comparable to other power generation projects without subsidies (I suspect not), but all the same, Trump's flushing over $4 billion down the drain. Crazy!

https://www.reuters.com/sustainabili...ct-2025-04-30/

So when progressive Democrats come back into power, how will they one up Trump? Maybe shut down half-built LNG plants, instead of "just" refusing to permit new ones, like Biden did?

Also, please note that Biden suspended issuance of new federal oil and gas leases, and permits for new wells on existing leases. Political considerations and the courts forced him to lift the suspensions. Trump's trying to do something similar with wind.

Why won't our politicians let free markets work? Dumb asses.

good post Tiny.

i would hasten to add 2 distinctions though in Biden's favor:
1. the probability of leaks and other forms of environmental damage in Keystone is well above 0; and,
2. we are cooking the earth with fossil fuel emissions, and the sooner we can get to net 0 Carbon, the better the chance that the planet is still habitable in 100 years. this is a here and now issue. getting home, fire and flood insurance at affordable rates in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and California is damn near impossible. i just got hit with a 6k HOA Special Assessment to repair damage from Hurricane Beryl. all of this is due to planetary damage already incurred from the burning of fossil fuels. and it only gets worse from here, regardless of what we do and when we do it. but the magnitude and speed of the new damage depend on what we do now. we should just leave it in the ground.

So when progressive Democrats come back into power, how will they one up Trump? Maybe shut down half-built LNG plants, instead of "just" refusing to permit new ones, like Biden did?

Also, please note that Biden suspended issuance of new federal oil and gas leases, and permits for new wells on existing leases. Political considerations and the courts forced him to lift the suspensions. Trump's trying to do something similar with wind. Originally Posted by Tiny

I would hope that the next administration would scrap old gas and coal plants before scuttling new ones.

good post Tiny.

i would hasten to add 2 distinctions though in Biden's favor:
1. the probability of leaks and other forms of environmental damage in Keystone is well above 0; and, Originally Posted by pxmcc

Pxmcc, While true, axing the Keystone expansion was a net negative for environmental damage and safety. The additional capacity that the Keystone expansion would have added went instead to,

a. the Trans Mountain Expansion, a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast. Some of this oil is now going to China, thus adding to jobs in China and improving energy security in China, instead of the USA.

b. Rail. Oil is still moving by railroad from Canada to the USA. Per barrel per mile, pipelines spill fewer barrels of oil. Trains result in more localized pollution. And trains carry a much higher risk of human casualties than pipelines.

c. Enbridge's Mainline Expansion from Alberta to Wisconsin.

To the extent that oil is being transported by train instead of pipeline, the probability of leaks and other environmental degradation and death is higher. Environmentalists complain about the effects of pipeline installation, but I don't see the big deal. You dig trenches, put in the pipe and bury it.

2. we are cooking the earth with fossil fuel emissions, and the sooner we can get to net 0 Carbon, the better the chance that the planet is still habitable in 100 years. this is a here and now issue. getting home, fire and flood insurance at affordable rates in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and California is damn near impossible. i just got hit with a 6k HOA Special Assessment to repair damage from Hurricane Beryl. all of this is due to planetary damage already incurred from the burning of fossil fuels. and it only gets worse from here, regardless of what we do and when we do it. but the magnitude and speed of the new damage depend on what we do now. we should just leave it in the ground. Originally Posted by pxmcc

This is not a valid criticism either. It's the opposite of what you think. To the extent oil is transported by train instead of pipeline, the green house gas emissions per barrel per mile are higher with trains, which use diesel. The oil was going to be transported and sold, regardless of whether the Keystone pipeline expansion occurred.

As to the bigger issue, the USA accounts for about 14% of worldwide CO2 emissions, and 8.6% of worldwide methane emissions. In 10 years, the US may very well be below 10%. If politicians eliminate the domestic oil and gas industry they won't do jack to reduce global warming. That's in the hands of China, India and other developing countries, which are increasing CO2 emissions.

One of the reasons that Biden and Harris lost is because the workingman rightly viewed them as favoring the smug, Prius-driving woman who wants to take his job or make him poorer. (An example of the later, the cost of electricity and gasoline in California is sky high, reducing the purchasing power of the workingman.) And for what? A reduction of a fraction of a percent in worldwide CO2 emissions?

There are a lot of Texas counties where Hispanics are the majority or plurality, which overwhelmingly voted for Trump. This even though he said Mexican immigrants were robbers and murderers and rapists back in 2016. In my county, Trump won by over a 60% margin, and he beat Biden by about 55%. Why? Because Kamala and Joe were existential threats to their jobs. Harris wanted to ban fracking in 2020. She probably still does. As I said, Biden stopped issuing permits for new LNG plants. Perversely that increases the incentive to flare gas because it reduces the incentive to build gas pipelines. And wanted to stop drilling on federal leases.

Please don't be taken in by the chicken little scare mongering of the environmental groups. You should read or listen to Bjorn Lomborg. You can Google his name. The cost benefit ratio of going to net zero carbon in a hurry sucks big time. Adaptation and/or geoengineering are the way humanity will cope with this. Again, this is not in the hands of the USA, but rather the developing countries that will account for most CO2 emissions going forward.

One last point. You're very concerned about the trade deficit. There's no surer way to run that up high and fast than to kneecap domestic oil and gas producers. That for a long while was the major contributor to our trade deficit, before the Renaissance of American Oil.

I would hope that the next administration would scrap old gas and coal plants before scuttling new ones. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I don't think there will be new coal plants. The old gas power plants, while emitting more CO2 than modern combined cycle plants, serve a purpose. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, you crank them up. They're still needed.