Replies are closed for this discussion.
Political discussion are not allowed on the Main Page. Delete and re-post in the Political Group.
Careful Bobi, your post about the future of fracking for natural gas isn't allowed on the front page. Maybe you should post something about solar energy or batteries replacing natural gas which would be something that would keep your discussion on the front page.
After 147 views and no further replies, I'll try to provide some context to the issue.
Those who are naive and/or misinformed may fear personal impact from a ban on fracking. It is certainly getting pushed hard by far right partisan media even though it has no basis in fact and has been repeatedly refuted by VP Biden. Whether candidate Harris would ban fracking if she were to ascend to the presidency, that is highly doubtful even she had the authority to do it unilaterally. The Congress, including a majority of Democrats, would not be in support. Banning fracking would be a confounding political move as it would increase energy costs for all citizens and businesses...and assure a significant backlash at the ballot box during the 2022 mid-term elections. Make no mistake, fracking will end at some undetermined point in the future but it will not be because of governmental regulation. It will be because the hydrocarbons produced will no longer provide a sufficient profit. I guess those that believed that Mexico would pay for "The Wall" may also believe that Democrats would ban fracking. Neither is rational and both are laughable.
Republicans love to berate Joe Biden over the Green New Deal. But it's not even his climate plan.
Both President Trump and Vice President Pence spent much of the first two debates conflating the Democratic nominee's plan for tackling climate change with an environmental blueprint introduced last year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and embraced by many young progressives.
“They have a $2 trillion version of the Green New Deal,” Pence said Wednesday evening in Utah during his first and only appearance with Biden's running mate, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.). The Democrats' climate plan, he added, isn't “that very different from the original Green New Deal.”
But Biden was blunt when distinguishing his plan from the other. “I don't support the Green New Deal,” he said. “I support the Biden plan I put forward.”
So what is the difference?
The two diverge in size and scope, but both are about tackling cutting emissions while creating jobs.
Biden says he embraces the Green New Deal as a “framework” for address rising temperatures. But he stresses he has his own separate plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Democrat is threading that needle to earn the support of young, left-leaning activists who view climate change as an existential threat while aiming not to alienate moderate voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio that rely on oil and gas drilling.
Biden made a conspicuous effort to consult both environmental activists and labor unions in crafting his plan to eliminate carbon pollution from the nation's power sector by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions across the transportation, agricultural and other sectors of the economy by 2050.
But the Green New Deal, as described in a resolution released in early 2019 by Ocasio-Cortez, sets an even more aggressive goal: Entirely eliminating U.S. contributions to climate change in just 10 years.
Experts say either target would be tough to hit. But U.N. scientists also say the world has precious little time to rapidly reduce the release of heat-trapping pollution. According to a 2018 report, nations will fail to keep global warming to moderate levels unless “unprecedented” cuts are made over the next decade.
Biden is selling his plan not only as a way to halt global warming, but also as an opportunity to bring back manufacturing domestically. “When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs,' ” Biden said in July.
Backers of the Green New Deal have an even more sweeping vision. Included in the plan is a guarantee to provide Americans with jobs, as well as a promise to provide “high-quality health care.”
The Green New Deal is a broad blueprint, not a detailed plan such as Biden's.
What it has in breadth, the Green New Deal lacks in depth. It was introduced as a nonbinding resolution, written without specifics to build a broad coalition of supporters that included Harris, who was one of several Senate Democrats running for president who co-sponsored it.
It doesn't prescribe specifically how the federal government should reach its emissions-reduction goals. As the deal's proponents note, Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't have every detail of his own New Deal nailed down when he first pitched it during the Great Depression.
The proposal also didn't specify a price tag, though conservative critics have claimed it would cost as much as $100 trillion. During last week's debate, Trump dusted off that talking point. “This is a $100 trillion,” he said. “That’s more money than our country could make in 100 years.”
Biden's plan, meanwhile, is more detailed. He wants Congress to pass legislation mandating emissions cuts from electric utilities and offering generous checks to those buying electric vehicles. His campaign says the plan will cost $2 trillion — not $100 trillion — over four years and would be paid for in part by rolling back Trump's tax cuts.
Aiming to win Pennsylvania, Biden has consistently rebuffed activists' calls to demand an end to fracking, a controversial oil and gas extraction technique that not only contributes to climate change but also poses a danger to drinking water. But the Green New Deal doesn't address fracking at all.
One area of overlap between Biden's plan and the Green New Deal is in addressing the unequal impact pollution has on people of color.
Biden wants to spend some 40 percent of the money earmarked for clean energy in historically disadvantaged areas. That target is in line with the Green New Deal's demand to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” of what it calls “frontline and vulnerable communities.”
My posts that highlight advances in renewable energy are intended for those who are open to scientific facts, interested in market trends and wish to be active in managing their mineral assets. My Internet alerts bring me many articles that are "energy" related whether they pertain to O&G, coal, or renewable energy sources. Knowledge is power and those who are uninterested in managing their mineral interests or do not feel capable of doing so are invited to ignore those posts. Energy policy is political, yes, but it is also economic and has relevance for investments and managed assets. I try to choose those articles that stick to the facts and potential real world impacts without getting bogged down in the politics. The bulk of my clients and GHS "friends" that I advise pro bono are owners of minerals prospective or proven for natural gas. A few do have condensate production which exists somewhere between "oil" and natural gas liquids. I tailor my advice based on their best interests and quite often post my opinion regarding holding or selling those specific interests. Knowing that the 22,000 plus members of GHS likely include a lot of mineral owners of oily assets, I suspect and hope that they get some benefit from those discussions.
The Political and Off Topic Group was created by Keith in an attempt to provide a forum for those partisans who wished to indulge in vindictive and personal attacks. A kind of blow hard relief value for the angry. I think it should be utilized as such. It spares the majority of the members from wasting their time on that type of back and forth and keeps the Main Page from devolving into a political mosh pit.
I appreciate this detailed explanation of the potential impact of a new administration as it relates to fracking, as well as your outline of the appropriate guidelines for posting to this page, Skip.
Keep it up, Skip, your posts are valuable. The people who gripe about renewable energy posts are the ones who will be left someday if stranded asset mineral rights worth nothing become reality. The risk is very, very real.
So this is a community, all are welcome regardless of political persuasion. People have posted on topics not directly to shale or loosley conneceted. My preference would be for political and non shale topics to both be on other pages, but as long as the discussion is related to energy, remains respectful and is helpful, I'm inclined to allow a post to stay up. I'm not big on censorship.
I think this post could have been beefed up a bit, a video clip or a part of the article linked back to the original source etc. So, take that as direction for future posts.