What happened to the Green New Deal?

If politicians get blamed when we run out of oil, then they should get some credit when we don't. The bad guys oppose fossil fuels and Trump supports it. Naturally we would build pipelines in Texas no matter what the Feds wanted.

We now have plentiful supplies and the infrastructure in place for energy dominance but the Green New Deal lefties wish to destroy the fossil fuel industry. For that ill advised effort, they should be voted out of office. Originally Posted by friendly fred

The Green New Deal is frightening, and all the Democratic candidates for president say they support it.

Fossil fuel energy is not going anywhere anytime soon. The alternatives simply do not produce enough power to satisfy the needs of a modern society. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That's the lunacy of Warren's and Sanders' position on this. Either would get rid of fracking in the first term. Sanders would reduce carbon emissions by 71% by 2030. Warren would get to 0% net carbon emissions by 2030. That's absolute madness, what it would do to the economy.

The Green New Deal is frightening, and all the Democratic candidates for president say they support it.



That's the lunacy of Warren's and Sanders' position on this. Either would get rid of fracking in the first term. Sanders would reduce carbon emissions by 71% by 2030. Warren would get to 0% net carbon emissions by 2030. That's absolute madness, what it would do to the economy. Originally Posted by Tiny

If anyone of those two were to get elected there's only one thing they'll do and that is Fuck the country up. They are everything this country doesn't need.

If anyone of those two were to get elected there's only one thing they'll do and that is Fuck the country up. They are everything this country doesn't need. Originally Posted by Levianon17

It’s amazing how many people support these two.

Bernie has the DNC by the balls. He has AOC on his corner. She can muster hundreds of thousands of her minions who are willing to leave the confounds of their mommy and daddy’s house to vote for all of the free shit they are offering.

It’s amazing how many people support these two.

Bernie has the DNC by the balls. He has AOC on his corner. She can muster hundreds of thousands of her minions who are willing to leave the confounds of their mommy and daddy’s house to vote for all of the free shit they are offering. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That's just it they aren't going to make good on all these claims of "free this and free that". What they actually aspire to do is over throw the Government. That's where all this talk of Socialism comes into play. They use the word "Free" a lot to arouse stupid people.

Actually Obama took credit for the increase in USA oil and gas production engendered by fracking too. Which is fine in my book, whether it was true or not. It shows he had some appreciation for the industry. Originally Posted by Tiny

Taking credit for it .... shows he has "appreciation" for himself!

He's also "taking credit" for the current surge in the economy, which includes the stock market which took off as soon as Trump won.

Obaminable's "Legacy" is DEAD! AFA neutered, Iran Deal tossed, ISIS, restricted drilling and leasing, volumes of strangling regulations tossed out, expansion and improvement of the military, respect for the USA, and soon to be massive infrastructure improvement that will add to the increasing jobs and wages ..... not to mention a sensible public school lunch program.

Bernie has the DNC by the balls. Originally Posted by Jackie S

What "balls"?

They want to slow the pollution of the planet. I have no problem with that.

Without people like that all our rivers would be like Love Canal. Not your nast Love Canal butthole but the real Love canal

As usual both extremes need tampered from the middle. Originally Posted by WTF

As usual you post your homosexual fantasies like the faggot you are.

The Green New



That's the lunacy of Warren's and Sanders' position on this. Either would get rid of fracking in the first term. Sanders would reduce carbon emissions by 71% by 2030. Warren would get to 0% net carbon emissions by 2030. That's absolute madness, what it would do to the economy. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes it is as idiotic as Trump trying to bring back the coal industry!

Yes it is as idiotic as Trump trying to bring back the coal industry! Originally Posted by WTF

That was mostly a political move, he's not going to favor coal over natural gas.

How about what I said about your Canadian pipeline comment? I'm trying to drag you into an argument and you're not taking the bait.

Tiny - you are correct on the Canadian pipeline.

And the devastation of our economy and country that the Fascist DPST's are al to ready to inflict on America.

trade policy - there have been issues - but Trump re did Nafta - and even nazi pelosi had to come around and approve, and China is being brought to heel over their appropriation and thefts of intellectual property and industrial espionage.

we have the pork - They don't. Xi knows hunger is what will bring down the communist regime in China.

He has already opened the door with economic liberalization. Eventually, political liberalization which follows economic liberalization will lead to a revolution if China does not adopt a tolerance of a multiparty system.

As with most things President promise, they can't always do these things themselves and "banning" fracking would seem to fall into that category.


https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion...-ban-fracking/


Could a future President ban Fracking?

If the proposed fracking ban did come into effect, it would have a huge impact on the US oil and gas industry. About 75% of the wells that have come into production in the US this year have been horizontal, according to Wood Mackenzie data, and so typically subject to hydraulic fracturing.


If three-quarters of the new wells drilled in the US could no longer be brought on stream, the country’s oil and gas production would plummet.
However, this outcome seems unlikely. Industry lawyers argue that trying to impose a ban on hydraulic fracturing by executive order or regulation would exceed the president’s powers, even on federal lands.


The Obama administration in 2015 finalized a fracking rule, intended to regulate oil and gas operations including well construction, wastewater management, and chemical disclosure, on federal land, but the rule was declared unlawful by a US district court the following year.


The judge found that the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, left the administration with no legal basis for regulation. Higher courts did not hear the case, as the rules were withdrawn by the Trump administration.


If a future president really wants to ban hydraulic fracturing, it seems likely they will need legislation to do it. Given the implications for jobs, tax revenues and fuel costs, such legislation would not face an easy ride through Congress.


The bottom line is that when Sanders and Warren talk about banning fracking, they are best understood as describing their aspirations, rather than predicting the future.

There have been signs that Warren’s campaign, at least, is thinking about trying to use the Clean Air Act to go further, using regulation to clamp down on the US oil and gas industry more broadly.


A spokeswoman for Warren told CNN in September that if elected, she would “build on the Obama administration's methane rule” to regulate “contaminants to our air and water as a result of fracking and other natural gas operations”.


However, the Clean Air Act specifies that regulations to cut pollution should be introduced “taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction”. If the cost of any proposed rule is shutting down great swathes of the US oil and gas industry, it may be tricky to persuade a court that the cost is justified.


One final route that a future administration could take is attempting to restrict US oil and gas exports. Sanders has said he would ban both imports and exports of fossil fuels. Warren’s campaign has similarly said she would “would prohibit future fossil fuel exports”. She has also co-sponsored legislation in the Senate aimed at blocking US gas exports by stopping the construction of compressor stations on pipelines.


The 2015 legislation lifting export restrictions for crude oil allowed for a president to reimpose restrictions for up to a year on national security grounds. Reintroducing the ban, even if only temporarily, would be a dramatic way for a new Democratic president to assert his or her authority. It would have a significant impact on the US oil industry, which so far this year has been exporting an average of 2.8 million barrels of crude a day.


In the longer term, a series of policies to restrict US fossil fuel exports, including a refusal to grant any more gas export approvals, would force some radical rethinking in the industry.


Trump has shown that it is possible for a US president to use trade measures extensively to pursue an ambitious policy agenda, and he has set out a toolkit that others could use for different objectives.


The US oil and gas industry has grown used to a broadly supportive administration. The possibility of a president who is committed to “accelerating the transition to clean energy”, as Warren puts it, is one that the industry will now have to take on board.

Tiny - you are correct on the Canadian pipeline.

And the devastation of our economy and country that the Fascist DPST's are al to ready to inflict on America.

trade policy - there have been issues - but Trump re did Nafta - and even nazi pelosi had to come around and approve, and China is being brought to heel over their appropriation and thefts of intellectual property and industrial espionage.

we have the pork - They don't. Xi knows hunger is what will bring down the communist regime in China.

He has already opened the door with economic liberalization. Eventually, political liberalization which follows economic liberalization will lead to a revolution if China does not adopt a tolerance of a multiparty system. Originally Posted by oeb11

Thanks oeb. We usually agree, but perhaps not on this. I believe the USA should have become a part of the Trans Pacific Partnership and put pressure on China along with our allies to get the Chinese to play fair. And I question whether China will adopt a multiparty system in our lifetimes. The Chinese communist party has opened the country to capitalism, which has brought prosperity to its people compared to the way things used to be. That along with Chinese nationalism, which can be extreme, may mean they can stave off Democracy.

Thanks oeb. We usually agree, but perhaps not on this. I believe the USA should have become a part of the Trans Pacific Partnership and put pressure on China along with our allies to get the Chinese to play fair. And I question whether China will adopt a multiparty system in our lifetimes. The Chinese communist party has opened the country to capitalism, which has brought prosperity to its people compared to the way things used to be. That along with Chinese nationalism, which can be extreme, may mean they can stave off Democracy. Originally Posted by Tiny

👍

btw...oeb doesn't know his asshole from a hole bambino's butt

However, WTF, as to your belief that oil pipelines shouldn't be built from Canada, I totally don't get that. You can have Canadian producers ship their oil to the USA, where it will be refined and consumed here and exported. Or you can have them ship it across western Canada to China and Asian countries. It's best for our economy and our energy security to have the oil come through the USA. Originally Posted by Tiny

That nasty ass strip mining they do ....let them build a pipeline to China.

Doesn't matter....we have plenty of oil. Dumbass Canadians can fuck up their environment if they want. I want no part of strip mining.