slug.com slug.com

1 2

Biden: I Would Transition From the Oil Industry ‘Over Time.’

No significant advances in battery charge density nor photovoltaic efficiency in 50 years make those the worst investments in history, but no matter. We’ll just promise to move ahead anyway, right? A bit like sending the army across a canyon before the bridge is built, or even designed. But hey, he knows more than engineers and physicists, right?

[theepochtimes.com]

Biden: I Would Transition From the Oil Industry ‘Over Time’
BY MIMI NGUYEN LY
October 22, 2020 Updated: October 23, 2020
FacebookTweetParlerEmail
577 Shares
250 Comments
Nearing the end of the second and final presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, on Thursday night, former Vice President Joe Biden said that he would “transition from the oil industry … over time.”

When asked, “Would you close down the oil industry?” by President Donald Trump, the Democratic presidential nominee said, “I would transition from the oil industry, yes.”

“Oh, that’s a big statement,” Trump responded, visibly surprised. Debate moderator NBC’s Kristen Welker quickly asked Biden why he would do that.

“Because the oil industry pollutes significantly,” Biden said.

“I see. It’s a big statement,” the president noted.

“Let me finish the statement. Because [the oil industry] has to be replaced by renewable energy over time. And I’d stop giving to the oil industries federal subsidies,” Biden said.

Experience the best way to read The Epoch Times online. Try our free app for a limited time.

He also said that solar and wind doesn’t currently get subsidies, and asked, “why are we giving it to the oil industry?”

MOST READ
Biden: I Would Transition From the Oil Industry ‘Over Time’
FBI Asks Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Tony Bobulinski for Interview: Senate Committee
“We actually do give [subsidies to solar and wind],” Trump responded. “And that’s maybe the biggest statement in terms of business. That’s the biggest statement, because basically what he’s saying is that he’s going to destroy the oil industry.”

The president then turned to the camera and emphatically said, “Will you remember that, Texas, will you remember that, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio.”

Biden was allowed time to respond.

RELATED
Biden's $2 Trillion Climate Plan to Prioritize 'Environmental & Climate Justice'
Biden's $2 Trillion Climate Plan to Prioritize 'Environmental & Climate Justice'
“He takes everything out of context but the point is, look, we have to move toward a net-zero emission,” Biden said. “The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050, totally.”

“Is he going to get China to do it?” Trump chimed in.

“No, I’m going to rejoin the Paris Accord and make China abide by what they agreed to,” Biden responded.

“That’ll cost you a trillion dollars,” the president said, before Welker moved on to the final question of the night.

Earlier in the debate on the topic of climate change and jobs, Biden denied that he would ban fracking, even though Trump noted that Biden has been recorded as saying as such.

Biden said that he would ban “fracking on federal land,” later adding that he meant to say “no fracking and/or oil on federal land.”

Under President Trump’s administration, the United States became an energy independent nation for the first time in more than 50 years, in part due to Trump’s tax and regulation cuts. Under the administration, the United States became the world’s top producer of oil and maintained its position as the top global producer of natural gas. The country in 2019 became a net exporter of petroleum (crude oil and refined) products for the first time since 1949, and is on its fourth consecutive year as a net exporter of natural gas.

Related Coverage
Biden: I Would Transition From the Oil Industry ‘Over Time’Trump: US Energy Self-Reliance Is Key Buffer Against Geopolitical Shocks
Biden in late August said that he will not ban fracking. Previously, Biden said at a March democratic primary debate “No more—no new fracking.” Biden’s campaign then said he meant he would not allow new federal land-drilling leases. The Trump campaign said that the Biden campaign was “attempting to walk back his previous statements after realizing voters aren’t happy about his proposal to kill thousands of jobs.”

Trump has openly said that he is “all for fracking” and has frequently touted his administration’s push for U.S. energy independence.

According to the Biden campaign’s website, his climate plan seeks to ensure that the United States “achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”

Speaking to reporters after the debate, Biden said that he was referring to a plan to stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

“We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels. But we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time,” Biden said after the debate.

“They’re not going to lose their jobs. Besides, a lot more jobs are going to be created in other alternatives.”

The final debate was much more calm compared to the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, with Trump and Biden having spoken mostly uninterrupted on multiple issues, including health care, race, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and foreign influence.

TimTuolomne 9 Oct 24
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Buggy whip makers became bus drivers....sure, I can see that.

...because the bus was actually invented.

We do not yet have sufficiently effective renewable technology to replace fossil, and there is no way to predict when or if we will before our fossil fuels end.

The math is not that hard to do, and as a BSME hoping to be on the forefront of those advances for my entire career, I am sure about this.

@TimTuolomne given my propensity to delve into research and development, I agree with you. There is no viable renewable energy capable of supporting our modern society - no matter how efficient we make it. Nuclear is the only possible option and the Left will not even consider it...

@tracycoyle. Having done my homework on nuclear, as a former nuclear engineer, I can assure you that there is no material on Earth that can contain high energy nuclear waste, without handling it to repackage it every few decades. There is always with the risk of human error, terrorism, exposure to those handling the waste, and the public when (not if) accidents occur.

@TimTuolomne While the problems of waste are being worked on - and they are (I like pebble reactors) - there is no renewable capable of proving the power we need at CURRENT levels and certainly not at future levels. I have supported sunsats, but the infrastructure is expensive.

At some point we will be able to use fusion - but in the 30 yrs I've been following that (My ex's brother worked at Los Alamos), we still have a long way to go....

@tracycoyle. One of the Left's arguments for renewables that don't yet exist is that "we have no choice." If a doctor gave you an option of a "cure" that had no chance because it wasn't perfected yet, you wouldn't take it, unless you were already terminal.

Its no different, and we are a long way from terminal. Nuclear fusion is the same kind of cat as battery and solar electric: It will be great when it works, but we have no idea when or if that will ever happen.

And if I were a betting man, I would predict that a fourth technology will win the day about which no one even has yet any idea, leaving the other three to be forever forgotten as historical artifacts.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:143524
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.