Debates 2020

No, Biden Wouldn't Ban All Fracking

Pence's answers on energy and climate were full of misdirection and misinformation.

|

During Wednesday night's debate, Vice President Mike Pence kept saying that a Biden-Harris administration would "ban fracking." Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) insisted that claim was not correct. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Biden has consistently said that he would not ban fracking and other fossil fuel exploration and exploitation on private lands. His administration, however, would ban fracking on federally owned lands. Natural gas production from onshore federal lands currently constitutes less than 10 percent of production in the United States.

Pence also noted that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are down. That is true, but the chief reason that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are down is because cheap natural gas (produced from largely from fracking) has outcompeted coal. If President Donald Trump had kept his promise to revive "beautiful clean coal," then U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would not be falling.

Debate moderator Susan Page asked Vice President Pence, "Do you believe, as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter, and more deadly and has made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging?" He responded, "With regard to climate change, the climate is changing. The issue is what is the cause and what do we do about it? President Trump has made it clear that we will continue to listen to the science."

The science suggests that man-made climate change is indeed making wildfires in the western U.S. worse. As I recently reported, researchers find that climate change is contributing to the rising temperatures and lengthier droughts that are fueling the increasing extent of wildfires in California. In addition, evidence is accumulating that as a result of rising greenhouse gases hurricanes are slowing down and getting wetter as well.

Pence is right that the issue is what do we do about climate change, but he offered no answer to that question other than a vague reference to "innovation" and to a shift in power generation from coal to natural gas for which the Trump administration can claim little credit. Biden's proposal to ban fracking on federal lands would, in fact, slow that shift. But it's false to say he would ban fracking altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Kamala Harris Promises To Decriminalize Marijuana and Expunge Records

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somehow you believed a word of it. They have made it plain, despite old Joe’s equivocating, that they will ban fracking. Get it together man. They are trying to win an election, and know for certain it won’t play in PA or OH. It might even fuck them over out west too. If there’s one lesson is that democrats do not give a shit about working people. They are beholden to billionaires, corporations, and lobbyists. Apparently reason koch enterprises just cannot accept losing again in order to get cheap labor and open borders.

    1. Commifornia already banned trucks by some year in the future.

      These Lefty lunatics want to live in mud huts.

      1. California will ban new fracking in 2024 and the sale of ICE vehicles in 2035.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…NEd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

        2. That’s an executive order from Nuisance and doesn’t mean shit. It’s just part of his plan to run for President in 2024

      2. I’m no fan of California, but you’re full of shit, they never banned trucks at least not yet.

      3. Biden won’t ban fracking; he’ll simply sign whatever ban Congress might impose. Oh, and he’ll magically “preserve” fracking even after he bans fossil fuels, so I guess we can frack, but we can’t do anything with whatever we get. And he won’t ban fracking – you’ll be free to do it as long as you’re willing to lose $ because he’ll make it legal, but prohibitively costly. Come on, man! He’s on tape promising to ban fracking! His recent backtracking is a joke. I used to love reason, but you’ve become just another TDS victim. Try to be a real journalist! Biden’s self-serving gibberish cannot wipe out his multiple promises to ban fracking, all of which are on video.

        1. Here you go:

          http://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1311128961993388032?s=19
          SUPERCUT: Joe Biden promises to ban fracking if he’s President.

          1. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ JOU To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.
            For more detail visit the given link…………► Click Here

            1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and JOO I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. GET MORE INFO

        2. You’re right. Reason’s writers like to hang around with other writers and journalists, all of whom make their living writing words in their safe spaces. So they hear the Trump bashing and the fairy tales about climate but never hear anything else. Wanting to be “in with the in crowd” they just absorb the fantasies around them and nod approvingly.

          It’s easy for them to forget the tax cuts, the 3.6% unemployment, the Supreme Court picks and the deregulation since their lefty friends never talk about those things.

          Trump’s a moron, but he’s a random moron. He blunders along, often doing the wrong thing but sometimes doing the right thing. Biden’s a leaf in a hard left windstorm always blowing in the wrong direction. Reason’s lefty drinking buddies want to end fracking, raise taxes and “make the rich pay their fair share” as well as institute racial preferences, disarm Americans, eliminate school choice and crush the gig economy.

          That can be ignored since Trump is the only real problem.

    2. In his books, Ronald Bailey exhibited scientific, economic and political objectivity. But this is a Biden/Harris ad posing as journalism.

      I’m in Pittsburgh, where anti fracking campaigners and Democrats from Philly, DC and NYC (where there’s no natural gas to frack) have gone to great lengths this past decade to sabotage our natural gas fracking revolution that has replaced steel and coal, sharply reduced US carbon emissions from coal, and is our region’s economic engine for the next 50 years (unless Biden/Harris win).

      After failing to ban fracking statewide and in Democrat run Allegheny County, the anti frackers and Dems in the PA legislature lobbied to tax fracking (in poor white Republican rural Appalachian counties) to increases costs of fracking and proposed giving the tax revenue to bail out failing black public schools in Democrat Philly and other cities (that don’t allow charter schools due to teacher unions).

      Anti fracking activists and Dummycrats have also campaigned to halt pipelines that are needed to transport natural gas, as well as further increasing the costs of fracking with extra fees and lots of unwarranted regulations (and all of their well funded campaigns falsely claim fracking is poisoning and killing children).

      The truth is that a Biden/Harris victory would sabotage the natural gas fracking industry (but may not completely ban it).

      1. Admit it, you didn’t read the article and then immediately pivoted to local issues that have little to do with the content of the article. Not a very good tactic on your part and as obvious as that fly on Pence’s head

    3. I came here to say this. Biden says he supports the Green New Deal on his website. Banning hydraulic fracturing was one of the central, primary line items in the Green New Deal. Whether he could do it or not, his policy positions say explicitly that eliminating fracking is one of his goals.

      If that is your plan, OWN IT. Tell people explicitly that you are deliberately going to make energy a lot more expensive. That it’s for the greater good. Tell people honestly that it’s going to hurt. Don’t try and hold contradictory positions in order to get votes from both sides.

  2. Whatever happened to “The End of Doom” guy? I miss him.

    1. Bailey is a liar and a Democrat lover.

      Funny that Trump brought the inner party of slavery guy in Bailey.

      1. “He gazed up at the wrinkled face. Four years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the vacant eyes. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!
        Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.
        Bailey loved Joe Biden.”

  3. http://twitter.com/9NEWSNANCY/status/1314041410316759041?s=19

    “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
    -Kamala Harris

  4. http://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/1314042103979220993?s=19

    “I guarantee we’re going to end fossil fuels.”
    -Joe Biden

      1. Oh come on R Mac.
        You really think Bailey would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

        It’s our eyes that must be wrong. Kamala and Biden’s tweets to the contrary must be illusions.

  5. Starting a title with “No,” is still shit.

  6. http://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1314044987823263744?s=19

    Facts First: Here’s a compilation of Joe Biden saying he’d ban fracking and fossil fuels… CNN is LYING.

      1. Maybe all that video of Biden saying multiple times that he’d ban fracking is deepfaked by racist Russian bots?
        Because Ronald Bailey is pretty adamant here that old Joe wouldn’t do something like that, and he wouldn’t just lie to us…

    1. Yet another example of right-wing media lying to you.

      https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/march-democratic-debate-transcript-joe-biden-bernie-sanders

      Here is the relevant context for one of those clips:

      Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.

      So Biden is talking about ending drilling for fossil fuels *on public land*.

      1. Pointing out that Biden will end all offshore drilling in the United States is not the slam dunk case you think it is.

        1. I don’t agree with Biden’s desire to end all offshore drilling. But that is an accurate representation of his position.

          1. No it isnt. Cover for your peog buddies AGAIN.

          2. “But that is an accurate representation of his position.”

            I BELIEVE A LYING POLITCIAN DESPITE ALL HIS OTHER CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ON RECORD!

          3. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.

            If you can’t drill you can’t frack. Your own quote says he will ban fracking. Do you just not read these things?

      2. What he said at the debate is at odds with what he has said elsewhere. How is it that you can’t see that?

  7. Mr Bailey – get back to science instead of politics. At some point 2 or 3 years ago you broke. You went from being a libertarian who covers science, to a guy trying to use science to prove a case against conservatives. I do not know what happened. Was it Trump? If so, that’s a pity. I didn’t always agree with you, but I would take that Ron back over the current one by 1000%

    Biden has been incoherent on his fracking policy. It is absolutely a fact that his own website has off-and-on endorsed the New Green Deal which includes an absolute sunset of fossil fuels. That would include banning fracking. Why you are trying to prove Biden’s case for him is beyond me- it has nothing to do with science.

    As for wild fires in California, I commented on your article. You cannot look at those historical graphs and think that they correlate at all with climate change. As I said in that article:

    “Let’s talk primarily of precipitation- the “dryness” of this year is about equal to what it has been for the past 40 years- it is really close to the mean. The reason it is “drier” than the 80s is that the 80s were unusually wet. But why didn’t we have massive fires 30 years ago when it became drier? 20 years ago? 10?”

    Indeed, take away the 1980s, and precipitation has been rising over the 20 years.

    But whatever. It is telling you do not bother to address the science-free fantasies that the Biden campaign- but of course you defend them, as you did with the vaccine article the other day. “Vaccines really are safe, unlike what the Dems are harping, but because Trump, we can excuse that.”

      1. No, not + 100.

        -Ronald Bailey.

    1. Bailey os a Lefty propagandist.

      The bitch about being pegged for propaganda like Bailey does is that most Americans ignore your Commie bullshit.

    2. Biden has been incoherent on his fracking policy.

      I agree that he has been incoherent. Do you think being “incoherent” is equivalent to an affirmative claim that he wants to “ban fracking”?

      It is absolutely a fact that his own website has off-and-on endorsed the New Green Deal

      He has never endorsed the “Green New Deal” as written by AOC.

      1. You sure do defend biden a lot for someone who claims they aren’t leftist.

        1. Point out where I am advocating for Biden’s position on energy production. You can’t because I’m not. Just because I’m criticizing right-wing propaganda doesn’t mean I’m supporting a left-wing point of view. You know this but you are too much of a Team Red shill to realize this. Plus you are just dumb.

          1. “Point out where I am advocating for Biden’s position”

            he said you DEFEND BIDEN not HIS POSITION you illiterate prog retard

        2. The fact of the matter is, Team Red cannot win without selling fear. The only way they can possibly win this election cycle is if voters believe Biden is some Antifa-supporting crazy radical Marxist socialist, and the only way they might actually believe that is if the Team Red propaganda machine floods the zone with crap like the above to paint an entirely misleading picture. Your team long ago abandoned running a campaign based on ideas and ideology. Since 2004 at least, it’s run a campaign based on lies and fear. Fear that the terrorists “will win”, fear that Obama is a “Kenyan Muslim Marxist”, fear that Obama will “fundamentally transform America”, fear that Hillary represents “Flight 93”, fear that Biden will “burn down the suburbs”. That is all Team Red has now. Fear, lies and demagoguery. Why don’t you come back to the adult table when you all decide to put forth ideas rather than demagoguery.

          1. “The fact of the matter is, ”

            Biden lied to you and you ate it like SQRLSY with a plate of shit.

          2. ‘Team Red cannot win without selling fear,’ and ‘Fear, lies and demagoguery.’ Coupled with your ‘adult table’ ad hominem, the ignorance demonstrated in these sentences negated any argument you had. Politicians of all sorts, to include your preferred group, use the same techniques and tactics, because smearing and mockery work better than rational arguments. Since 2015 orangemanbad has been represented as a rapist, a sexist, a racist, a white supremacist, a fascist, a narcissist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe. Pence has been smeared with variations of the same, with attacks on his faith thrown in. The proof? Deconstruction of sentences to determine ‘true meaning,’ assumptions, mind-reading, or just in time for election accusations that are short on evidence. The accusations deserve to be investigated. All else is biased wishful thinking, and should be ridiculed. Your entire comment borders on the wishful biased thinking category.

            1. Don’t forget dog whistles. Lefties like Lying Jeffy love dog whistles.

              1. Only bitches hear dog whistles.

          3. “Your team long ago abandoned running a campaign based on ideas and ideology”

            Dude, I am not a Democrat, so stop trying to lump me in with them.

      2. How many “The Green New Deals” are there Lying Jeffy? What are the differences between Biden’s The Green New Deal and AOC’s The Green New Deal? And why are you to stupid to realize that not being clear on that, and exactly what Biden’s fracking policy is, isn’t an accident, it’s on purpose to fool people like you?

        1. You covered it. He’s stupid and complicit.

      3. Maybe, and I’m just spit balling here, Biden’s team learned from Hillary’s epic mistake of telling people in places like Pennsylvania that she was going to destroy their livlihoods?

    3. Again, the magazine is a vehicle for ghost-written, left-wing propaganda where, at best, the editors proof copy as a side gig. Ron Bailey didn’t write the above article and it’s probably in his contract for all the book hocking that he did that they get to use his name in an equal number of bylines on science-y propaganda pieces.

  8. http://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1314054367025270790?s=19

    CNN’s Bash: “Would there be any place for fossil fuels including coal and fracking in a Biden administration?”

    Biden replied, “No, we would we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated.”

    1. And this is how right-wing media lies to you.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democratic-debate-transcript-july-31-2019-n1038016

      Here is the full context of that statement:

      BIDEN: My plan calls for 500,000 charging stations around the country so by 2030 we’re all electric vehicles. My plan calls for making sure that we have $400 billion invested in technologies to learn how to contain what we’re doing, creating 10 million new jobs.

      We will double offshore wind. We will end any subsidies for coal or any other fossil fuel. But we have to also engage the world while we’re doing it. We have to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      (APPLAUSE)

      BASH: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?

      BIDEN: No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.

      He’s talking about getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, not for getting rid of fossil fuels entirely. People like Inslee were criticizing Biden for NOT wanting to get rid of fossil fuels.

      1. Here’s how dumb you are jeff. There are virtually no subsidies for gas and oil companies slecific to their industries. They are all general subsidies such as generic liability write-off for assets over time. But you’re too dumb to understand this so keep repeating the leftist subsidies lie. Tax breaks aren’t even subsidies.

        1. Okay? I don’t know if you are telling the truth on this matter, I”m going to lean towards “no” because of your history of whatever exits from your keyboard is straight from RNC HQ. What the subsidies are or aren’t, is besides the point in this current discussion. The point is what Biden claimed to want to do in the context of that quote. Not “end fossil fuels”. It was to end SUBSIDIES for fossil fuels.

          1. JesseAz
            October.8.2020 at 8:04 am
            Here’s how dumb you are jeff.

            chemjeff radical individualist
            October.8.2020 at 8:19 am
            Okay? I don’t know

            Lol.

          2. “Okay? I don’t know if you are telling the truth on this matter, I”m going to lean towards “no” because of your history ”

            Ok, now can assume you’re lying about everything you say because of yours.

            1. I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

          3. Yet that isn’t what he said, it’s what you seem to want him to have said. If he was talking about only subsidies, he would have said:
            ‘We would make sure there are no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.’

          4. I don’t know if you are telling the truth on this matter,

            So you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. If you did, you would know if what he is saying is correct.

            Go away you despicable little loser.

          5. Stick to you point CJRI. Estimates for domestic subsidies for fossils fuels are estimated as $20 Billion for direct and indirect funding. That in the US. Groups like IMF and Forbes has estimated that internationally the subsidies are on the order of $5 trillion dollars. Fossil fuels are on the way out and those making money on them are cashing in as much as they can know there is no future for there product.

            1. Name the subsidies you lying leftist. Lumping international subsidies in with US policy only detracts from your honesty further not to mention labeling the IMF a US group…is there anything true in your post?

      2. My plan calls for 500,000 charging stations around the country so by 2030 we’re all electric vehicles.

        So he is going to ban cars. Nothing radical about that

        And what does he mean when he says end subsidies? We don’t subsidize them in any ordinary meaning of subsidy. We tax the hell out of fossil fuels. So what does he mean here? You don’t know.

        You are such a dishonest little weasel.

      3. “BASH: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?

        BIDEN: No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.”

        It’s very simple to understand if one has a basic comprehension of the English language. There would be no place for any fossil fuels in a Biden administration. In addition, there would be no subsidies. That’s what the use of “and ” and “either” in his response makes clear. Stop arguing based on what you wish he said and address what he actually said.

  9. The dilemma of not being able to run on your real plans:

    http://twitter.com/HowieHawkins/status/1314054209332015104?s=19

    Biden/Harris Reject:

    – Anti-imperialism
    – Ban on Fracking
    – Campaign Finance Reform
    – Green New Deal
    – Increasing Social Security Benefits
    – Medicare For All

    1. Biden/Harris Reject:…

      If only that were true. Of course, winning by lying to voters about what you’re going to do isn’t any more attractive.

  10. “The science suggests that man-made climate change is indeed making wildfires in the western U.S. worse.”

    Mr. Bailey links to one of his own articles to support a scientific claim that he does not even make in that prior article. Seriously?

    Call me cynical, but citing yourself and then getting the citation wrong seems to be a classic case of a writer assuming that his readers are idiots.

    “In addition, evidence is accumulating that as a result of rising greenhouse gases hurricanes are slowing down and getting wetter as well.”

    This is just a complete mangling of the cited study. There is nothing in the study suggesting that “greenhouse gases” are exacerbating hurricanes. One has to wonder if Mr. Bailey even bothered to read the underling sources he is citing here.

    1. Call me cynical, but citing yourself and then getting the citation wrong seems to be a classic case of a writer assuming that his readers are idiots.

      Unless, once again, Bailey agrees to pen a few articles and let his name be used on a few more as long as he can hock his book.

  11. Wow so blind but why your not naive Ron so it must be political and it aint libertarian politics

  12. Pence is right that the issue is what do we do about climate change, but he offered no answer to that question

    Neither have you, or Harris, or Biden, or Obama. That’s because nobody can prevent climate change anymore; the CO2 has been emitted and it’s going to be around for a while. And nothing the US does will have any significant effect.

    What we can do is deal with the effects, and the simplest and best way of dealing with the effects is to ensure rapid growth of worldwide economies.

    The science suggests that man-made climate change is indeed making wildfires in the western U.S. worse.

    In the same way that a stubbed toe makes Ebola worse.

    1. A hilarious paper from astrophysicist came out week saying the most likely habitable planets in the universe that have the highest chances at life are 5 degrees warmer than ours.

    2. “The science suggests”

      That’s a super sciency phrase.

  13. Unreason staff all watched the VP debate and wont admit that Democrat party is finished. Harris and the biden presidential debate also showed it.

    Democrats stand for nothing but slavery, lost American jobs, violent rioting, and communism.

    If you dont vote for them, they will blow your house in.

    1. I bet unreason staff read these comments with violent anger….

      1. Well either they say they agree, which fits into ‘words are violence’, or they remain silent, which is violence.
        So the Reason staff is entirely violent.

        (did I get that right? This newspeak is hard to learn)

        1. I think so. You aren’t mostly peaceful unless your smashing shit and lighting it on fire.

          1. Hold my beer – – – – – – –

    2. I wish the Democrat party was finished. Unfortunately, the idiot Trump cannot get out of his own way. He is now losing bigly. The polls may be wrong, but it is highly unlikely that they are that wrong.

  14. TDS rant just as I expected. Sad. Many such cases.

  15. This article is one of the most shameful things you’ve done, Ron.

    This isn’t science journalism, it’s cheap propaganda.
    As others have linked to here in the comments, there are myriad instances of public statements and tweets, of Biden and Harris contradicting your narrative.

    You need to retract and apologize. You used to be better than this.

    1. It is commendable of you to be so kind and forgiving with TDS victims. But then again, we all know that he’s not going to change, in fact, I bet he’ll get considerably worse during President Trump’s second term.

      May HaShem look upon kindly upon these poor, miserable and misguided souls… 🙁

      1. “It is commendable of you to be so kind and forgiving with TDS victims.”

        No, it is selfish on our part. Bailey used to be one of the good ones. We want him back.

  16. The CNN fact checker says it is false… So all of you commenters who want to use your direct quotes from Biden to claim otherwise can just suck it! The fact checkers have spoken. Biden said no once, so the other things don’t count.

    1. The direct quotes that commenters have pulled up are taken out of context and are straight from RNC HQ.

      I have posted two instances above where those ‘direct quotes’ do not represent the truth and instead represent instances where right-wing media is trying to lie to people.

      Which would you rather believe, chopped-up edits of quotes that *just so happen* to confirm your inner biases, or a broader look of the entire record?

      1. It is amazing watching leftists defend on video quotes about their candidates. Good work Jeff.

        1. The clip with Biden’s exchange with Dana Bash at the debate is straight from the “GOP War Room” channel on Youtube. Who is the one here pushing partisan talking points over substantive discussion?

          1. Multiple quotes on video of Joe Biden comes from the GOP war room? What time can we tune in to MSNBC to see you Lying Jeffy?

            1. It is his only defense and the question is “so what? Biden is on record saying it, fuck your ad hom games”

          2. Oh no you don’t like the source.

            What a stupid fucking blind spot ypu have, you deny reality because of who showed it to you.

          3. I just went to Twitter and searched “fracking”.

            No war room needed.

          4. It’s pretty fucking hilarious watching you attack the sources of people when you ask for cites. I wonder what you’ll say when someone decides to attack your sources?

      2. I point out in a thread above that even in the debate quote you directly cite, he says that there is no room in a Biden administration for fossil fuels. Explain to us how his debate quote does not say that.

    1. The science suggests that man-made climate change is indeed making wildfires in the western U.S. worse.

      Bailey calls himself a science reporter? Virtually everyone agrees it is forest mismanagement. Celebs and idiots push the global warming as the cause.

      1. Last year I was on a guided trip through national parks of the southwest. The guide was a pretty progressive tree-hugger type. She said that the vast majority of problematic fires in federal land are in areas managed by the national park system. Those areas managed by the forest service are fine. The forest service is tasked with preserving forests. So they practice aggressive forest management.

        1. The feds are inept at pretty much everything they do so I could totally see that being the case.

    2. Amazing how both you and Nardz share the exact same right-wing edited clip that supposedly claims that Biden wants to “ban fracking”.

      1. What’s amazing is that a supposed libertarian voting for Jo is taking even one second to defend Joe Biden.

        1. He’s lying about that too. He’s voting for Biden.

          1. He’s actually voting for Harris, but he’ll be pulling the lever for Biden.

      2. He says he will do it in so many words. It is amazing how you will lie and pretend video doesn’t say what it says.

      3. Amazing how you don’t seem to realize that the clip is unedited and is even available on numerous legacy media and lefty sites where they think that it’s “a good thing”.

        Or maybe you do and are just lying as always.

  17. Biden wants to ban fracking *on federal lands*, not ban fracking entirely.

    The better solution is just to sell off the public land, so that private individuals can decide what to do with that land.

    By the way, what is Trump’s position on fracking on federal land? He is in favor of it, of course. Problem is, he is in favor of it even against the wishes of the residents in the surrounding communities.

    If the local residents in, say, Colorado, don’t want fracking, why should a Trump federal government force them to put up with fracking on federal land nearby?

    If the local residents in, say, Pennsylvania, do want fracking, why should a Biden federal government forbid them from using the natural resources on the land nearby?

    The answer of course is not for the federal government to put its heavy hand on the scales, and let private individuals decide what to do, by selling off the land and leaving it up to them and local jurisdictions to deal with the issue of fracking.

    Biden wants to end *subsidies for* fossil fuels, not end fossil fuels entirely.

    On this, I think libertarians can agree – no subsidies for fossil fuels, no subsidies for “green energy”, no subsidies at all for power generation.

    By the way, what is Trump’s position on subsidies for fossil fuels? Subsidize power generation from coal? Is *this* a libertarian position?

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/06/donald-trump-hopes-to-save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

    Lost in all the bickering is a substantive discussion on the issue. The libertarian analysis I would imagine is that individuals should be free to do what they want when it comes to power generation – coal, fracking, solar, windmills, whatever – but that the costs of negative externalities ought to be accounted for in some way. If a firm is running a coal-fired power plant that belches smoke, that smoke is harmful in some form or fashion and the firm causing that harm ought to be liable for it at least to some extent. Getting the costs right for the negative externalities – along with public sentiment – ought to be enough of an incentive for firms to switch away from high-polluting activities towards low-polluting activities.

    1. We get it youre a liar and a prog.

    2. Really?

      Here is the full context of that statement:

      BIDEN: My plan calls for 500,000 charging stations around the country so by 2030 we’re all electric vehicles. My plan calls for making sure that we have $400 billion invested in technologies to learn how to contain what we’re doing, creating 10 million new jobs.

      Right here–“all electric vehicles by 2030”–what is that if not a ban in ICE vehicles?

      We will double offshore wind. We will end any subsidies for coal or any other fossil fuel. But we have to also engage the world while we’re doing it. We have to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      Here, a specific statement about ending subsidies for coal and any other fossil fuel”

      (APPLAUSE)

      BASH: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?

      Here Bash asks NOT about subsidies, which were very clearly and specifically dealt with already, but for Biden to clarify what place there would be for ANY fossil fuels, including coal and fracking in his administration.

      BIDEN: No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.

      And Biden says that they would work it out. That fossil fuels would be eliminated, including coal and fracking. AND that any subsidies would be eliminated.

      Not ‘or’. ‘And’.

      1. It’s like Jeff and Tony imagine nobody will ever bother to check their “cites”.

      2. I said the same thing in a thread above. I should have read further before posting.

      3. R/murderedbywords

        Poor Jeff.

    3. “If the local residents in, say, Pennsylvania, do want fracking, why should a Biden federal government forbid them from using the natural resources on the land nearby?”

      For the same reason Obama/Biden’s EPA and other agencies conspired with anti frackers and Big City Democrats in PA to sabotage our natural gas fracking revolution in dirt poor rural Appalachian counties since 2009.

      Also, Cuomo already banned all fracking in NY (falsely claiming it was a public health emergency), depriving tens of thousands of upstate New Yorkers of a future economy, while their southern neighbors in PA thrive.

      Democrats have tried to ban fracking in PA for more than a decade, then they tried to tax it (to fund failing Philly schools), while also campaigning to ban natural gas pipelines, and further increase costs by imposing unwarranted fees and regulations.

      I live in Pittsburgh, and resent Jeff’s lies.

  18. Premise 1) Biden’s Green New Deal promises to have 100% carbon emissions free power generation by 2035.

    Premise 2) We can’t have 100% carbon emissions free power generation by 2035 without getting rid of natural gas.

    Conclusion: The Biden Harris ticket is either lying about the Green New Deal or they’re lying about not banning fracking.

    Here’s Biden’s campaign website on whether he supports the Green New Deal:

    “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.”

    https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#

    1. Here’s the New York Times describing Biden’s Green New Deal:

      “Mr. Biden’s plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest standards for energy efficiency.”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html

      Assuming Biden is lying about banning fracking is giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he isn’t lying about banning fracking, then his goals are completely insane.

    2. Premise 1) Biden’s Green New Deal promises to have 100% carbon emissions free power generation by 2035.

      No it doesn’t, Ken.

      1. “Biden calls for 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. Here’s how far we have to go.”

        —-Washington Post

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/30/biden-calls-100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-heres-how-far-we-have-go/

      2. “On emissions reductions, Biden’s plan calls for a carbon pollution-free U.S. power sector by 2035”

        —-CBS News

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/green-new-deal-joe-biden-climate-change-plan/

        The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CBS News all agree on at least two things:

        1) Biden’s Green New Deal creates 100% emissions free power generation by 2035.

        2) ChemJeff is an ignoramus.

        1. “2) ChemJeff is an ignoramus”

          97 % of scientists agree.

          1. The Science is settled!

        2. Well that’s not what Biden’s plan actually says.

          Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

          https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

          1. Chemjeff is either being willfully dishonest, or he’s really that ignorant.

            The 2050 date is to eliminate all emissions–including cars.

            The 2035 date is to eliminate 100% of all emissions for power generation.

            It says so in all the sources I quoted.

            The use of natural gas in transportation is minuscule. The important use of natural gas is for power production. We can’t get to zero emissions in power production in 15 years (by 2035) and not get rid of fracking for natural gas.

            And ChemJeff still doesn’t understand why fracking, natural gas, power production, 2035, and Biden’s Green New Deal are all interrelated, it’s either because he’s being a willfully dishonest laughingstock or because he’s a ridiculous ignoramus.

            Doesn’t even know the basics facts of Biden’s Green New Deal–but wants to tell us how he feels about it, I guess?!

            LOL

            1. Goddamn, this is just not Jeff’s day.

  19. I thought I opened the Reason website but this article reads like it is from Time magazine.

    1. It seems that the Reason website was purchased by the DNC.

  20. “If the local residents in, say, Colorado, don’t want fracking, why should a Trump federal government force them to put up with fracking on federal land nearby?”

    How about, “Because they aren’t the owners of that land?” States should not get to dictate the use of federal land, and while I wouldn’t mind the land being privatized, you know that is merely so you can stop fracking.

    You are suggesting replacing 1 tyranny with 50. I lived in Colorado during the fracking boom. In the towns and county where I lived, it was enormously popular. The land owners were making money on their mineral rights- while also getting drilling companies to make improvements to their land. Local businesses were thriving- small businesses that produced specialized equipment and fabrication services. The people of Denver and Boulder are the ones trying to end the practice. The DEMOCRATS are trying to ban fracking in the state.

    Jeff- you can cherry pick, or contextualize one or two statements that Biden said, but he comes from the administration of “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” From the state legislatures in Oregon, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, to the statements made by his VP in debates and public statements, to his own vacillating depending on the audience he is speaking to- it is painfully, obviously clear that he is going to do everything he can to end fracking.

    You are the one carrying water for the Democrats, not the other way around. You are doing so just as the “Fact Checkers” were when they dismissed Republican claims that Obama and Biden’s “Keep your Plan” was obviously untrue. You could look at the plain language of the bill and say “This literally says you cannot have a plan with these rules in it…you will lose that plan.” And the “Fact Checkers” would say, “Untrue, because the Democrats *say* otherwise.”

    1. “If the local residents in, say, Colorado, don’t want fracking, why should a Trump federal government force them to put up with fracking on federal land nearby?”

      I address this when I write about conservation–there’s a fundamental problem in a pluralistic democracy when it comes to land use.

      On the topic of conservation, I’d point out that the purpose of the BLM and the Park Service is not only to protect wild horses and buffalo from ranchers. It’s also to protect ranchers from wild horses and buffalo. Ranchers depend on that land for grazing. Wild horses graze on that land competing with cattle and buffalo carry diseases that make cattle have stillborn calves. The problem is that conservation requires exclusion, but pluralistic democracy means that ranchers have rights and interests and pursue them within the context of a pluralistic democracy.

      The solution is privatization of public lands–for both conservationists and ranchers, but until that happens, ranchers have just as much a right and say into what happens on government land as anyone else with rights and interests in this country.

      The same thing applies to fracking and oil drilling. Sure, the locals in Colorado have rights–and so do frackers and the people with economic interests in fracking. Anyone who assumes that putting land under government “ownership” means that no one can use it is delusional. Putting it under government “ownership” means that whatever interests there are within the context of a pluralistic democracy predominate in the use of that land. Local Coloradans are one of many voices in a pluralistic democracy–and that’s the way it should be.

      Anyone who thinks the solution to our political problems is a government that isn’t responsive to what its people want is nuts, and if Bidne/Harris imagine that using the government to ban fracking on government land will stop people from pursuing those interests within the framework of our pluralistic democracy, they’re nuts. People who rely on natural gas for electricity outnumber the opponents of fracking in both numbers and economic power by a long shot.

      1. As a member of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, I have seen how a uniquely AMERICAN, innovative model of philanthropically sponsored conservation can preserve open space, wildlife and the interest of residents in the area. I have also seen how government can impede a transition to just such a mechanism.

        The problem in a pluralistic democracy is that government can always short circuit problems that take time to hash out. Before conservation groups like the RMEF, Safari Club, and the BHA innovated, Teddy Roosevelt pretty much short circuited these problems by nationalizing vast swaths of public land. In hindsight, this probably saved several species (including elk) from extinction, but it also created numerous problems- namely that vast swaths of the American West’s resources became unavailable to its residents, and instead provided cheap to cronies in Washington.

        That said, I would far rather a government appropriate land for its exclusive use, rather than the government’s current practice of appropriating multiple easements against private property holders. This later model, where my private property is encumbered with more and more restrictions- while the state and federal government let their own lands become tinder boxes- is exactly the wrong direction for the US to go.

        1. I’ve known people who hunt elk to say they prefer elk to beef.

          What say you?

          1. It is better, although when you freeze it to use throughout the year, it loses some of the advantages over beef that you buy fresh. It is also noteworthy that most of the meat you get off an elk is not the premium cuts you get off a cow (aka slow elk). You are mostly getting meat off the haunches that is tougher.

    2. How about, “Because they aren’t the owners of that land?” States should not get to dictate the use of federal land,

      No, but how about – the federal government ought to be more respectful of what the local population wants?

      and while I wouldn’t mind the land being privatized,

      Good we agree on something.

      you know that is merely so you can stop fracking.

      That’s not true, but even if it were – so what? Is liberty important *for its own sake*, or not? If all the land being privatized resulted in less fracking – because the new property owners just didn’t want it – would that be a “good thing” or a “bad thing”? From the point of view of liberty, the correct answer is, “it doesn’t matter”.

      You are suggesting replacing 1 tyranny with 50.

      Actually both you and I are suggesting replacing 1 tyranny with the “tyranny” of millions of private landowners. But, even still, having individual states own the land would be preferable to the federal government owning the land, don’t you think?

      The people of Denver and Boulder are the ones trying to end the practice. The DEMOCRATS are trying to ban fracking in the state.

      Are these DEMOCRATS not also citizens of Colorado just as much as those who support fracking? You speak about them as if their opinions on the subject shouldn’t matter. This is part of the problem with the rhetoric nowadays. Your argument is basically “the federal government should set fracking policy in Colorado in order to stop local Democrats in Colorado from stopping fracking”. THAT is advocating for a tyrannical approach.

      Jeff- you can cherry pick, or contextualize one or two statements that Biden said, but he comes from the administration of “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

      What does ObamaCare have to do with fracking? And yes Biden is equivocating on the issue of fracking. He is trying to have it both ways. He is saying to one audience that he will look disapprovingly on it but he is saying to another audience that he will not look TOO disapprovingly on it. So go right ahead and criticize him for his vacillation and his equivocation. It is totally deserved. But in no rational universe can the universe of Biden’s statements on the matter can be summarized to mean “yep, it’s cut and dried, it’s an absolute certainty, he definitely wants to ban fracking”. He is AT BEST ambiguous about it. How do you draw a conclusion of certainty from evidence that only contains ambiguity?

      It’s not enough to simply say Biden is not as friendly to fracking as Trump – that is absolutely true and defensible. No, the right-wing propaganda machine has to go ALL THE WAY to OMG HE’S GOING TO BAN FRACKING. This is not “carrying water for Democrats”. This is “carrying water for facts and reason” and not falling for bullshit propagandistic demagoguery.

  21. “And another one down, another one down, another one bites the dust”

    1. Assuming we’re talking about the same thing, they gotta be telling some of these people to write this stuff, right?

      I understand the Boehms and the Binions writing crap that doesn’t make a bit of sense, but I’m seeing the heavyweights go the same way.

      Somebody must be telling them to write this stuff.

      1. As I said yesterday- how can Nick stand by and let this happen to Reason? At some point, he shouldn’t be able to look at himself in the mirror without that Jacket being a symbol of his shame.

        Time after time, I read Nick’s writing and- while I don’t always agree- I at least see a good faith libertarian perspective, instead of these totally liberal perspectives attempting to dress as libertarians.

        What the hell happened here?

        1. Somebody must be writing a big check.

          1. For this Foundation’s largest patron, everything here takes hind tit to fully open immigration and zero US tariffs. Trump’s against both. This magazine is therefore against Trump.

      2. Somebody is. Remember back in 2016 when everyone had to do a “Authoritarian Trump is an Authoritarian” piece? Walker and Doherty turned in their homework late but they all wrote the same essay.
        No active editor was exempt. I can’t imagine that universal mandatory denunciation was independently ordered by KMW.

      3. I think it’s sociopolitical bias, intensified by the upcoming election. Or, orangemanbad has bled over into all aspects of writing at Reason.

        1. I’ll buy that explanation for the kiddies.

        2. It’s basically a rehash of 2016. At least the comments are still entertaining and informative.

      4. “I understand the Boehms and the Binions writing crap that doesn’t make a bit of sense, but I’m seeing the heavyweights go the same way.

        Somebody must be telling them to write this stuff.”

        Ya think?

        I’ve been telling you all they’ve been getting new editorial marching orders, ever since Sullum started spitting out complete garbage a few months ago. They’re still choosing to work here and get published (likely as would I, in their place), so I guess the new editorial tone must not be that bad.

        Bailey’s just the latest. No one will remember this interlude anyway, when he tries to sell another book three or four years from now.

  22. “His administration, however, would ban fracking on federally owned lands.”

    So he is banning fracking. Did Pence say Biden would ban ALL fracking?

  23. The best you can say is no one has any idea what Biden will do on fracking because the Biden campaign changes their tune on the issue depending on what audience they want to pander to. However, the Democrat Party activists hate fracking with a passion and want to ban it entirely and Biden has said at a number of points that he shares that goal.

    Don’t gaslight us, Bailey.

    1. Better than the Trump Trash who lie 24/7.

      1. This is less like the pot calling the kettle black, and more like vantablack calling a anything else, black.

        Everything you post here, Plug, is a lie.

    2. I appreciated the gaslight pun in this context.

  24. If America is to follow science, what about nuclear power? Doesn’t France get 75% of its electricity from nuclear? Yet no one seems to bring it up when discussing an end to fossil fuels, least of all those “environmentalists” who seek to worship science.

    1. You are correct about France and nuclear power. However, environmentalists are in the Marxist tradition and only want power. They don’t give a hoot about what is reasonable or rational. If you want to read up on this, Ex-Marxist David Horowitz is the man.

    2. I’m in favor of nuclear, but let’s not start using France as a role model, for anything.

  25. Somebody is. Remember back in 2016 when everyone had to do a “Authoritarian Trump is an Authoritarian” piece? Walker and Doherty turned in their homework late but they all wrote the same essay.
    No active editor was exempt. I can’t imagine that universal mandatory denunciation was independently ordered by KMW.

    1. We probably have a whole month of it ahead.

  26. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Reason signals to the Left it is willing to play footsie because Orange Man Bad. Ludwig Von Mises rolls over in his grave.

  27. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do… CLICK FOR FULL DETAIL

  28. “Do you believe, as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter, and more deadly and has made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging?”

    The “scientific community” has not concluded this.
    climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-u-s-wildfires/
    climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-hurricanes/

    1. Does the phrase “as the scientific community has concluded” give you any idea that the “impartial moderator” is Pelosi’s biographer?

    2. I must have blacked out when consensus was discussed during my lessons about the scientific method.

  29. What are you going to believe?
    Real video of Joe Biden clearly declaring he will not ban fracking, or real video of Joe Biden clearly saying he will ban fracking?
    Really, how is this even open for discussion? Joe is clearly on the record. End of story.

  30. We get it you lying prog. Biden won’t ban all fracking but he will ban it most places and regulate it into non-viability to appease his watermelon new deal base and promises.

  31. RONALD BAILEY, You mentioned that humans have caused climate change. What evidence you have since you don’t have a standard to compare what is happening in climate today? Secondly how do you explain the climate change that the “scientist” say has happened before. Change that happened long before the population of humans were high enough to affect the climate. Change that happened long before the CO2 added by human activity was so small as to not be noticed? There has been several climate warming/cooling cycles since the world has been circling the Sun. Some of those warming/cooling cycles have happened not very many years ago as far as geological time is measured.
    You mentioned the west coast as being affected by human caused climate change and how the west coast, California, Oregon and Washington state as being affected by that change. Maybe so but the wildfires have more involved than just warmer climate. If it was just warming climate the west coast of Canada would also be affected. Now the difference is a human cause though. The human cause is the left coast of the US had several decades ago, and I read at the time it was happening, stopped forest management. Up until that the forest on the west coast were managed to the unwanted fuel from around the trees. This caused the fires when they did catch to starve for fuel and die out. The fires back then were much smaller on the whole than now.
    Now this year along the west coast there has been may fires but south in Mexico and north in Canada not so much. Why? Maybe forest management is the reason. Now I admit that climate change could be part of the cause also. But there is no way to prove that since in the US along the west coast the liberal/progressive politicians have prevented forest management all along the cost so there is no way to check if management would have made a difference. Now mitigating climate change caused by humans will take years for it to produce any fruit where forest management could show evidence with a few years.
    Now these fires are not a total loss because where these forests range land has burned it will be a few more years before there will be enough fuel to support large fires. BTW where there is forest management the fires are smaller and easier to control.

  32. The schadenfreudiest part of this article isn’t the fact that Biden and Harris have consistently said they would ban fracking. It’s the full-circle projection oxymoron. Supporters and ambivalent independents were derided for seeing optimistic outcomes in the fog that is Trump. Despite any evidence, statements, actions, contradictory statements, a lack of evidence that Trump would take any given action, the worst couldn’t be ruled out because they can’t read Trump’s mind. Now (again) despite the evidence that he was a part of fracking restrictions under Obama, and the fact that he, and his VP, has said he’d ban fracking, Reason is somehow able to read Joe Biden’s mind and prognisticate his future.

    The shit topping on the schadenfreude sandwich is that Bailey is overtly saying that a little (more) government control of fracking is OK.

  33. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotHere………………………Read More.

  34. “As I recently reported, researchers find that climate change is contributing to the rising temperatures and lengthier droughts that are fueling the increasing extent of wildfires in California”
    ———————————————————————————————-

    “BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

    The evidence for the big droughts comes from an analysis of the trunks of trees that grew in the dry beds of lakes, swamps and rivers in and adjacent to the Sierra Nevada, but died when the droughts ended and the water levels rose. Immersion in water has preserved the trunks over the centuries.

    Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward, used radiocarbon dating techniques to determine the age of the trees’ outermost annual growth rings, thereby establishing the ends of drought periods. He then calculated the lengths of the preceding dry spells by counting the rings in each stump.

    This method identified droughts lasting from A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and from A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350. Judging by how far the water levels dropped during these periods — as much as 50 feet in some cases — Dr. Stine concluded that the droughts were not only much longer, they were far more severe than either the drought of 1928 to 1934, California’s worst in modern times, or the more recent severe dry spell of 1987 to 1992.

    In medieval times the California droughts coincided roughly with a warmer climate in Europe, which allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland and vineyards to grow in England, and with a severe dry period in South America, which caused the collapse of that continent’s most advanced pre-Inca empire, the rich and powerful state of Tiwanaku, other recent studies have found.

    Does Tiwanaku’s fate await modern California?

    Dr. Stine, who reported his findings last month in the British journal Nature, says that California, like Tiwanaku, presents “a classic case of people building themselves beyond the carrying capacity of the land.”

    https://junkscience.com/2020/09/new-york-times-debunks-climate-caused-california-wildfires/#more-103155

  35. “Science says”…seriously you are going there? Bailey is so typical of liberal art majors who have limited to no hard science classes or understanding. “Science” to the average poly sci major is “evolution” and “climate change.” Neither are really science. Science is using natural law to explain physical systems. This means using tested physical fields like classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics and general/special relativity to analyze the world. “evolution” is a theory which is widely accepted on how living things change but the actually physics underneath is still not understood. “climate change” is even worse. The climate is very complex non-linear system such that you can’t test your theories in the lab..instead you have to model and the assumptions you make are by nature very board and the interactions of the assumptions really are not that well understood. You can’t create a simple carbon dioxide model of the earth which will be accurate. You can measure gross factors but now these act non-linearly is just a guess.

    Please stop it with the “science.” You want to talk about celestial mechanics, rockets, hell even lasers and the double slit experiment..that is science..climate change is more of an art at this point.

  36. “The science suggests that man-made climate change is indeed making wildfires in the western U.S. worse. ”

    To justify that, you have to put a lot of weight on “suggests.” The article you link to offers evidence on both sides. Looking at the temperature graph, it has gone up by about one degree since 1960, so it’s hard to believe that has had much effect on the rate of fires over the past sixty years. You mention drought, but the IPCC, having claimed in the fourth report that climate change was increasing the fequency of drought, retracted that claim in the fifth report.

    The big change is not climate, it is forest management, which has allowed large amounts of burnable material to accumulate.

Please to post comments