October 23, 2020

Biden makes a "big statement," answering "yes" to Trump's question "Would you close down the oil industry?"

From the transcript of last night's debate:
Trump: "Would you close down the oil industry?"

Biden: By the way, I have a transition from the old industry, yes. 

Trump: Oh, that’s a big statement.  
Biden: I will transition. It is a big statement. 

Trump: That’s a big statement.

Biden: Because I would stop....

Trump: That’s a big statement. 

Biden: Well if you let me finish the statement, because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time, and I’d stopped giving to the oil industry, I’d stop giving them federal subsidies. You won’t get federal subsidies to the gas, oh, excuse me to solar and wind. 

Trump: Yeah. 

Biden: Why are we giving it to oil industry? 

Trump: We actually give it to solar and wind. That’s maybe the biggest statement. In terms of business, that’s the biggest statement.... Because basically what he’s saying is... he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that Texas? Will you remember that Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?...

Biden: He takes everything out of context, but the point is, look, we have to move toward net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally.

Did Biden misspeak, is he misstaken about the feasibility of ending the oil industry, or is this really a serious plan?

I see at Politico, "Conservatives pounce on Biden’s desire to move away from oil/The former vice president said he would stop giving the industry federal subsidies, to the consternation of President Donald Trump and his supporters."

That headline suggests that Biden didn't mean to say "yes" to the idea of closing down the oil industry, only to ending federal subsidies. Yes, that's the position Biden took after the debate, according to Politico: "After the debate, Biden clarified to reporters that he didn’t want to end the fossil fuel industry, but rather get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels." No direct quote. I wonder what he said.

... Biden initially answered in the affirmative when asked if he would close the oil industry, even if he tried to clarify it later and stress that none of his changes would happen right away. The problem for Biden is that he is running against someone ready and willing to pounce on any perceived mistake — see Hillary Clinton’s emails — and amplify them as loudly as possible, even if or when it gets away from the facts.

Like pouncing on perceived mistakes is a special, bad thing that Trump does. It's what all vigorous candidates do. Is WaPo so used to babying Biden that it thinks Trump is a big bully for holding him to his statements and taking them seriously?! 

It calls to mind how, at a Democratic presidential debate, Biden said “no new fracking.” It might be a popular thing to say in a Democratic primary, but not in a general election, where fracking is a significant employer in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. His campaign clarified immediately afterward that he wants no new fracking permits on public lands, a position that would let most fracking continue. “I am not banning fracking,” Biden felt the need to say in Pittsburgh months later, in September. 
To this day — even at this final debate — Trump seizes on that one line from that one March debate to inaccurately describe Biden’s position. “He was against fracking, he said it,” Trump claimed Thursday night.

That's basic competence from Trump. The author of the WaPo article strains to protect Biden. As long as he "clarifies" his statements afterwards, Trump shouldn't quote the original statement? Imagine if the press offered that kind of protection to Trump! His worst wordings are restated over and over. 

120 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...

One of the few honest things Slow Joe has said during the campaign. The environmental wackos call the shots in the Dem Party. No cars, no oil, no fracking. If you work in the oil fields or refineries of Penn or Ohio, don't vote for the man who wants to destroy your industry.

Dave Begley said...

In the immortal words of China Joe to Barack, "This is a big fucking deal."

People hate change. Especially unnecessary and expensive change.

Why are we doing this? Because the same people who modeled 2m dead in the US are modelling the destruction of Earth in 2100. But Joe's Chinese paymasters don't have to do a thing.

If global warming is the existential threat Joe says it, then he should bomb the Chinese coal-fired power plants in his first 100 days.

Gusty Winds said...

It’s a stupid idea, and his backers like he frothing AOC want it. Billions of people would starve. Who wants to get on a solar powered or electric 747? Fracking has revolutionized our energy industry. No more wars for oil….and Joe and the Democrats want to end that too. It’s all about Western PA and Eastern OH. During the primaries when they were pandering to their radical college campus base, they made it clear that was their position. They are either bullshitting their base, or bullshitting PA and OH. Pick one.

etbass said...

Biden was a better debater than Trump last night, imo. But it is largely that he just makes stuff as he goes along and it sounds great if you are completely ignorant (which most people are). Trump tended to answer the questions that were asked instead of spinning his story as he wanted to. He is not an experienced debater and confuses his ability to speak before a crowd, unchallenged with actual debating tactics.

Mark said...

I never knew Republicans were big into giving tax money to subsidize unprofitable businesses.

Apparently that's the Trump way.

stevew said...

So we're supposed to give Biden the benefit of the doubt and allow him to clarify his statements and policy positions. Ok, how about we hold him accountable for communicating so poorly in the first place? He is a doddering old fool to my eyes and ears and thoroughly unqualified to hold a public office of such importance.

Kate said...

If he's giving subsidies to solar and wind, he's giving to oil. Oil loooooves solar and wind. Its unreliability guarantees oil usage.

However, I can't actually understand what Joe is trying to say. Incoherent.

gilbar said...

you want a Direct Quote? HERE'S your direct quote
Biden: He takes everything out of context, but the point is, look, we have to move toward net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally.

you can NOT get ANY cleared than that... In ANY context

by 2035 net zero emissions in 'energy production'
by 2050 totally which, includes cows and people

phantommut said...

What I wish the Republicans would drive home is that increasing energy costs hurt low- and middle-income families much harder than it does the well-to-do. Environmental absolutism is a luxury issue. Democrats have morphed into the Party of the Gentry living off the backs of the common people.

Kevin said...

It wasn't a misstatement. It was an answer to a direct question.

If you don’t want to end fossil fuels, you don’t discuss your grand plans.

You just say “no”.

Brand said...

Trump: "Would you close down the oil industry?"

Biden: By the way, I have a transition from the old industry, yes.


Exceptions would, of course, be made for government, friends of the Bidens and other elites.

gilbar said...

If global warming is the existential threat Joe says it, then he should bomb the Chinese coal-fired power plants in his first 100 days.

MOST CO2 is coming from Asia. Global Thermonuclear War is our ONLY HOPE
Nothing stops global warming, like a nuclear winter
we NEED to exterminate 80% of the population of the earth, and do it SOON (with in 7 years)
it is our ONLY HOPE. It won't be 'fun', but we have NO CHOICE
{unless you are a climate denialist}

wake UP sheeple! Global Thermonuclear War is our ONLY HOPE

Nonapod said...

Conservatives pounce

The problem for Biden is that he is running against someone ready and willing to pounce on any perceived mistake

Those mean old conservatives are always pouncing on the hapless gazelles like Biden.

But seriously, given what happened to the coal industry during the Obama years does anyone truly doubt that Biden and his handlers want to end fracking and the oil industry? Of course they do. Now, you may personally think that's a good thing, but a lot of people with jobs in that industry may disagree.

tim maguire said...

I recall Biden also saying in the primary debates that he was willing to put 100s of thousands of fossil fuel industry workers out of jobs under his environmental plan. This wasn't a one-off mistake that Trump pounced on, this is what Biden consistently said when it was politically convenient. He is only repudiating it now that it's politically inconvenient.

mezzrow said...

Trump should simply run an ad using this exchange as the audio over this picture:

https://sixdollargas.org/bp.jpg

chickelit said...

Joe Biden is utterly beholden to adherents to the Green New Deal or the Biden Energy plan as he likes to call it. He is beholden Both here domestically and especially abroad in the Paris Treaty which Biden plans to re-energize if you'll pardon the pun. Biden's allies -- especially China -- relish the thought of America winding down from oil AND gas while they ramp up construction of coal-fired plants.

Todd said...

someone ready and willing to pounce on any perceived mistake — see Hillary Clinton’s emails

Perceived mistake? What a worthless hack! She deliberately used an unsanctioned, unprotected, out of network, private email server in order to avoid accountability and FOIA searches so that she could raise money for her "charity" under cover of her official position and in the process compromised national security! God these people are stupid, partisan, lazy hacks one and all!

I had a secret clearance when I was in the service and had I done anything REMOTELY like this, I would still be rotting in jail! They are all willfully ignorant and incurious when it comes to ANYTHING related to "their side".

Mike Sylwester said...

In civil politics, anyone should be allowed to clarify or retract a statement. Then the discussion should move forward, on the basis of the current statement.

In pragmatic politics, however, politicians win elections by using gotcha tactics.

A civil politician is likely to lose his next election if his opponent uses gotcha tactics.

MayBee said...

Biden also said in the primaries that we would transition away from fossil fuels. Now he even gives dates: 2025, 2035, and 2050.
These aren't the least bit realistic.
Trump had a great part of this debate, talking about how solar just isn't there (sounds like Biden wants to reenact their Solyndra policies) and building windmills is a huge pollutant.
Even putting charging stations by the side of the road. Ok, but....we're always told we're supposed to cut back on energy use at home. And now electricity for cars is the best idea? But not for your air conditioner?

chickelit said...

BTW, why is Trump doing the moderator's job, asking Biden the tough questions? Kudos to Trump for asking Joe tough questions AND keeping his cool.

MayBee said...

The new jobs through green energy was one of Obama's huge, expensive failures.

Skeptical Voter said...

I keep wondering just what is in Joe Biden's "plans". I hear that he has a plan man, but the specifics don't show up. I know that there's a Democrat dreams of a party platform--that good old Joe either hasn't read (most likely) or can't remember and articulate (that's a certainty).

But "come on man" tell us about your plan! But he can't. I think Biden may have used the term pig in a poke last night--could be wrong but I heard that phrase from one of them. Well Biden's "plans" are a pig in a poke that will be administered by new unknown, unidentified shadows lurking in Biden's Politburo on the Potomac and setting policy.

Mike Sylwester said...

I have the impression that Biden is promising to end "federal subsidies" that are trivial in relation to climate change.

Also, they are "subsidies" only in a very broad definition of that word.

It'sSwordfish said...

Welker, her voice filled with dismay, immediately asked Biden "Why would you DO that?" I believe she meant 'why would you SAY that Joe people are watching oh Joe you were doing so good'.
Like Trump, Welker knew immediately how foolish Joe's answer was.

Harry Lime said...

We need a 2nd Amendment for cars.

Sally327 said...

I think the key word in Biden's statement is transition. There will be kinesis but towards what alternatives only he knows. It's not really clear how the US government will know either because it mostly can only produce entropy or quietus through its power to tax and regulate.

Transition is a useful word. But it requires a certain amount of faith, that there is a purpose to the movement, a destination that Joe Biden can see up ahead even if the rest of us can't. And we may not get there with him but he and select others will reach that promised land.

hawkeyedjb said...

One of the eternal tropes of the Democrats is "subsidies to the oil industry." Ask any one of them to list those subsidies. Joe, of course, hasn't any idea what he's talking about, but even his handlers couldn't give you an answer.

Wince said...

Trump should have emphasized that Biden wants the country to rely on unreliable, truly government subsidized sources of energy -- wind and solar -- while hampering the production of domestic conventional resources that reliably fuel the country's economic engine.

All of which would make the US once again reliant on foreign sources that negatively affect the balance of payments and require projection of military force to protect.

iowan2 said...

I wish people would ask about the science.

How many joules of energy per year are provided by oil?

How much renewable energy wind, solar,?,?, is needed to replace oil?

CStanley said...


Why are we doing this? Because the same people who modeled 2m dead in the US are modelling the destruction of Earth in 2100.

This is a really good point. Either the scientists who predicted 2 million deaths from Covid 19 were wrong (which calls in to question the doomsday scenarios of global warming) or they were right and Trump’s handling of the pandemic reduced the magnitude to 10% of what it would have been.

Pick one, Dems!

Sebastian said...

"Conservatives pounce"

Always a tell.

Also a meta-tell: that progs have no idea how we deplorables decode their BS.

Still abstaining, Althouse?

Krumhorn said...

It will be particularly delicious if Trump gets reelected. To see leftie heads explodinging through their bug-eyed orbital sockets by the millions and the spontaneous combustion of leftie hair follicles will be such fun to watch. It could last weeks followed by mopey depression and chest beating. The Marks, Renderings, Howards and LLRs will be inconsolable.

Of course, here in California, the insanity will continue unabated as if nothing had happened.

- Krumhorn

wendybar said...

Good thing you have your electric bike. There may not be any electricity to run it though...so invest in good shoes.

Law Prof said...

"Well if you let me finish the statement, because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time, and I’d stopped giving to the oil industry, I’d stop giving them federal subsidies. You won’t get federal subsidies to the gas, oh, excuse me to solar and wind."

I understood him to mean that he would phase out subsidies for oil and that would lead to the transition away from it. I think, a bit awkwardly, he's saying Trump does not want to give subsidies to solar and wind.

That's not ending the oil industry, even if it favors other energy sectors. I don't think that the "clean up" afterwards is significantly different than what he said. But, as almost always with Biden (and let's be real, Trump, too), he could have been clearer.

PB said...

A serious plan is one that will achieve it's stated objectives. Biden doesn't have a serious plan.

This Person said...

And isn’t Biden’s claim of an absence of subsidies for renewables wrong. Does anyone fact check him on that?

R. Duke said...

And by the way, what subsidies? We know what subsidies solar and wind get; buy a solar array for your house and there are numerous credits and deductions, same with EV's. But what exactly is the "subsidy" that an oil company gets for drilling oil? Why does no one call them out on this BS.

R. Duke said...

And by the way, what subsidies? We know what subsidies solar and wind get; buy a solar array for your house and there are numerous credits and deductions, same with EV's. But what exactly is the "subsidy" that an oil company gets for drilling oil? Why does no one call them out on this BS.

h said...

How damaging is this: "And the fact is, and I’ve made it very clear, within 100 days, I'm going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people." (and in the sentence previously, Biden blames Obama for inaction in the previous administration. Will Obama like this?)

Temujin said...

"Conservatives pounce..."
What Trump missed was this softball: Biden stated that no one lost their healthcare when the ACA was jammed through on a Christmas Eve vote using a never-before-used congressional tactic, and some serious lying to congress people.

No one lost their healthcare?

Mine went away. So did millions of other peoples plans. Entire companies went away. Thousands of plans were eliminated or merged with something unrecognizable and 5 times the price.

We all lost our healthcare when ACA came in. We all had to start over with something less directed to our individual needs and lifestyle, and 5-10 times more expensive. Do people not remember what a CF that was?

RoseAnne said...

I know it is trendy to point to wind power as an alternative but no one seems to want to address the problems with wind power AS IT STANDS NOW - let alone if we ramp is up to a major alternative. Even if there is wind to be had, the windmills break down and are difficult and expensive to repair, the blades do not last forever and are already a disposal problem and the bird carnage - including some endangered species - is horrendous. Oh, and by the way, no one wants a wind farm in their neighborhood.

Wilbur said...

I don't believe there is a single person whose vote will switch because of this. Can you identify one?

People made up their minds a year ago. It's turnout and fraud, that's all that matters.

Mark O said...

No one will know because the Media Cabal will embargo it.
The Dark Night of Fascism has finally landed. And landed hard.

Leland said...

It's going to happen anyway. Already oil demand is on the decline. And if you are worried about the oil industry, perhaps first be worried about the airline industry. Much of the demand decline is from the airline industry no longer flying. If you thought TSA security theater made flying miserable; get ready to wear a mask for the duration of every flight you ever take again. The good news, the uncomfortable mask may make you forget how uncomfortable the close seats are, except wouldn't distancing the seats be a better solution...

Darkisland said...

You cannot have an industrial society, with all the health, cultural and other societal benefits without an industrial power supply.

Wind doesn't work because it is not predictable. Solar MIGHT work if there were some way to store the energy. Right now we have no way to do that unless someone makes a big breakthrough. It won't be batteries, I don't think. Lots of other technologies that work, pumped hydro, railroad cars on mountains, flywheels, compressed air in caverns, heat sinks. All of them work, in certain limited applications. None of them scale.

We need power 24 hours a day. More importantly, we need dispachable power 24 hours a day. That means when you turn on your tv, the system can supply the additional power that you need.

The only reason that solar, and to some extent wind, works, is because they free ride on the other utility rate payers ie; you and me, Walgreens and Toyota and so on. People using solar are using the electrical grid as their "battery" and are not paying the cost of providing that battery. And their battery runs, for the most part, on fossil fuel. Some on nuclear, a little bit on hydro but mostly fossil.

If we go to battery cars and electric trains and other transportation, we will probably need to triple our generating capacity. That means tripling the number of solar panels and tripling the amount of battery storage.

Add heating, and air conditioning to the extent that some is non-electric, direct fired by fossil fuel, and you probably need to double it again.

We are going to need tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles of solar panels. And thousands of square miles of batteries. Unless something more power dense comes along.

All this needs to be near point of use. Within, say 100 miles or so.

Lots of people are going to get rich off of this. Lots of the rest of us are gonna get poor off of it.

John Henry

mikee said...

Put it on your website, Joe challenged.
Moments later, Trump had clips up on his website of Joe and Kamala saying they would end the oil industry again and again and again and again....

You can try pissing on my leg and telling me we have a low level warm rain occurring, and I might jut try to walk away from your craziness, but if you walk up and try to sucker punch me, please expect a return self-defense fist to your own blubbering chops.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

He's Biden's clarification of the first clarification:

"Eventually we're going to have to go to oil, but we're not getting rid of 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. "It will not be gone for (inaudible) probably 2050."

So once again the media is lying and Althouse falls for it.

MayBee said...

Do people remember how just a few short years ago, Democrats had them *afraid* of fracking? Matt Damon starred in a movie about it!
It was poisoning your water and your air! Flames were going to come out your faucets!
I mean... it seems like a data point in this whole conversation. Democrats so badly didn't want it. They'd rather send guys to war in the ME then let fracking happen.

Darkisland said...

This image shows the amount of land needed for 4100TWH of solar power. 4100 TWH is the current consumption of the entire US.

we need 86,000 KM2 of solar or 77KM2 of Wind. For comparison, the entire state of Ohio is 116,000 km2


https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D22AQHz9yfLU7xmHA/feedshare-shrink_1280-alternative/0?e=1606348800&v=beta&t=i08CPdfbc_u8KiZ8kx1XP_QWxHkCDStijEH9riFZFgk

John Henry

Static Ping said...

The more general problem, one that gets ignored regularly, is that switching the power grid to renewable power is impossible without a major technological breakthrough. The way power grids work is you need to have X amount of electricity at any given time to support all the demand. It's not like you can generate power now to use in 4 hours. Power generated now has to be used now, unless you have some sort of way of storing power like giant batteries. There are currently no batteries that are capable of performing this task. The only ways to make this work is to have consistent power sources that you can depend upon; otherwise, you end up with power shortages and brownouts and blackouts. (See California.)

The two darlings of the renewal industry are solar and wind. Solar has a major problem in that it cannot generate power at night, so it is useless half the day, and the amount of power it generates during the day is dependent on the weather. Wind power only generates power when the wind is blowing. Furthermore, when the wind is blowing too hard the windmills need to be shutdown to prevent damage. Trying to build a power grid on two ridiculously inconsistent power sources is insanity. It cannot work with the technology we have right now. And that's not bringing in all the other issues involved, like finding locations for massive solar farms without crossing the environmental activists, or all the birds that get chopped into pieces by the windmills, or the fact that windmills produce so little power that it may cost more power to manufacture them than they generate in their lifetime.

The only renewables that are consistent are hydroelectric, which is limited to geographic locations that can accommodate one and has the ire of those environmentalists again, and geothermal, which is not available in large amounts unless you live among volcanoes like Iceland. If you want a stable power grid, as opposed to one that will fail on a regular basis with all the economic fallout that includes, the power has to be generated from a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear, hydroelectric, and whatever niche power sources that can provide a consistent load. Perhaps if you build enough wind and solar you can guarantee a baseline amount of power at any time and it can be used to complement the other power sources, and maybe if you have a unique situation where you can store excess solar and wind power that can provide consistency (by pumping water up to a dam, for instance), to but that's all it can do. Rely on it too heavily and your power grid is crap.

Biden's position is incredibly radical and foolhardy. It says something that a substantial portion of the population thinks this makes sense. Too many are in the dark about literally being in the dark.

John Fisher said...

Ann - it gets mighty cold in Wisconsin. Imagine there's no fossil fuels. It's easy if you try. Do you get it yet?

Gabriel said...

What "federal subsidies" are these? They get depreciation allowances like anyone else, but there are to my knowledge no payments to fossil fuel industries. The government does not pay them to put power on the grid they way they do with wind and solar...

hombre said...

Alternate question: Would you close down the economy? Same answer.

Trump’s boorishness notwithstanding, there is something seriously amiss for the Democrats, however evil they may be, to have nominated a creepy, demented grifter like Biden for President and for half the country to pretend that he is mentally, physically and morally fit for the job. This is not an epiphany. The other Democrats tried to bring attention to his deficiencies during the primary debates.

If he wins, American educators can congratulate themselves for having produced an abundance of gormless fools.

Paul said...

If anyone remembers Pelosi and Reid passed a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR 'STIMULUS' in the first years of Obama's admin. A lot of it went to Solar and Wind 'energy'. It all went BANKRUPT. Lost hundreds of millions.

That is the legacy of Biden's 8 years as VP. Unless it's nuclear energy it will be very costly.. and still be a loser.

If you want another failed vision... VOTE BIDEN. Vote for economic ruin.

Known Unknown said...

Did they seriously just use "Conservatives pounce!"?

Birches said...

One of my favorite parts of the debate last night was when Joe got a question and didn't want to answer, so he started talking about the struggling American people trying to pay their bills. It sounded so canned. And then Trump called him on it! It was beautiful.

Michael K said...

Biden lies with every answer. The fracking ban is on his website.

The Green New Deal is on his website. When he gets confused about his policies, h tells people to go to his website. Good advice.

Spiros said...

Joe was talking about government spending programs that provide money directly to fossil fuel. But the real problem is our tax code, which is stuffed with subsidies for oil and gas. And it's not just the legislation. Lobbyists try to influence how the IRS administers its rules all the time.

Original Mike said...

"To this day — even at this final debate — Trump seizes on that one line from that one March debate to inaccurately describe Biden’s position"

Biden has said it repeatedly. I watched a montage of his statements just last night.

Unknown said...

One word rebuttal: Solyndra.

Gunner said...

WaPo wants to put Slow Joe in a snuggie and protect him from actual scrutiny. Very fine people.....

The Godfather said...

Hillary’s emails were a “perceived mistake”? Come on man!

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Isn't it extraordinary that Biden's crimes are off limits?

Birkel said...

Anybody want to talk about the "Dark Winter" comment by Biden?

https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/11/06/event-201-health-security/

Dark Winter was a war game put on by national security types, in preparation for a biological attack by a foreign power.
IOW, it was a simulation that tracks remarkably with the biological attack by Biden's paymasters in China against the US with a novel coronavirus.

Winnie Xi Flu

Could that phrase be anything but an allusion to this war game simulation?

M Jordan said...

That debate was Trump’s finest hour (of debating). Utter demolition.

Birkel said...

Note that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was involved in the wargaming.

Sam L. said...

SO, Joe, we all gotta ride bicycles??????

The Drill SGT said...

Biden: He takes everything out of context, but the point is, look, we have to move toward net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally.

Biden wants to walk away from fossil. period. He shot himself in the gut. Twice, if you add his demand that Trump produce the video, which Trumps team did in 5 minutes during the debate.

changing focus. No Oil means no petro-chemical industry, no plastics. many synthetic fibers, etc

NOT.POSSIBLE

Francisco D said...

Spiros said... But the real problem is our tax code, which is stuffed with subsidies for oil and gas.

You are using the word "subsidy" in the same manner that the Dems are trying to use the term "court packing". It is disingenuous and dishonest.

The Dems cry about the tax codes that they have mostly written. The codes allow oil companies to write off business expenses with a different amortization of their capital expenses. It is not a subsidy. It is a tax break that most large industries have because they pay the politicians for those breaks.

I would be fine if we simplified the tax code and got rid of the million pages of breaks for donors. If we did that, how would politicians get money? Well, aside from payoffs from foreign governments.

Mark said...

So Trump got Biden to admit that DAMN RIGHT HE CALLED THE CODE RED.

No further explanation needed -- and no, BIDEN did not clarify afterward, his handlers tried to.

The question is, did Trump know that Biden would answer with a yes? Was it a planned question? Or was he just asking in an off-hand way?

Original Mike said...

"And isn’t Biden’s claim of an absence of subsidies for renewables wrong."

"Wrong" does not begin to describe it. Biden has to know alternative energy is subsidized up the wazoo.

Biden told a lot of whoppers last night. This was just one of the more obvious ones.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Gabriel said..."What "federal subsidies" are these? They get depreciation allowances like anyone else, but there are to my knowledge no payments to fossil fuel industries."

The democrats awhile back proposed eliminating depreciation allowances for the oil and gas industry. No one else, just fossil fuels.

Aggie said...

Joe was tired and blurted out a talking point as if it were a commitment. Trump did a good job wearing him down in spite of the moderator's indulgence of Joe. She, on the other hand, seemed to always give Joe the last word when Trump landed a good rebuke.

Like the European Union, the progressives want to phase out hydrocarbons, and have declared their intention to do it in a very short period of time. In some cases, legislation has even been put in place to make it official policy - like timelines for eliminating internal combustion engines, for instance. Basic engineering math already confirms that alternative energy is incapable of filling this role, and even greenies admit it.

But in no case is there a coherent plan by any of these progressives that shows how energy demand growth is going to be met with some kind of new energy supply that isn't hydrocarbon based. Think about that. Our leaders are telling us not to fear an approaching hurricane while they are busy outlawing shelter.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I'm a fan of local youtube channel Ryan Van Duzer. He is not political. He runs and rides his bike all over the world.

Watched one of his bike rides thru Cuba.
You can see the poverty and the backwards 3rd world living on poor roads and impoverished locals dotting the countryside.... So quaint. Che's secret communism caves. So charming. This is what the left want for the masses. We are all to go back to the stone age - while the Biden/Pelosi/Clinton/Twitter/Tech Oligarchs live large off our hard work. While they live large off of the hypocrisy.

Thistlerose said...

I guess Joe wants the US to go back to dirty coal power plants to provide the electricity to charge all the new electric cars rather than the cleaner natural gas. To many people seem to think that electricity just magically appears when you plug in your car and that there is no manufacturing required to produce it. Solar and wind power is not going to be enough to produce the power needed to heat and cool our homes, power our cars and produce and transport our food. Joe's energy ideas will move us back to the 1700's.

I'm Not Sure said...

"You are using the word "subsidy" in the same manner that the Dems are trying to use the term "court packing". It is disingenuous and dishonest."

Exactly. Unless one believes that all earned income belongs to the government (is that your position, Spiros?), not taking away what people earn is not a subsidy.

Amadeus 48 said...

Well, it is obvious: The biggest mistake you can make is to take anything Biden says seriously. The second biggest mistake you can make is to not take anything Biden says seriously.

Vote for Biden. He'll never let you down. It's about character, man.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Like pouncing on perceived mistakes is a special, bad thing that Trump does. It's what all vigorous candidates do. Is WaPo so used to babying Biden that it thinks Trump is a big bully for holding him to his statements and taking them seriously?!

So, what does it say about Biden that his strongest supporters think he's pathetic?

Shouldn't you believe them?

Michael K said...

Blogger Spiros said...
Joe was talking about government spending programs that provide money directly to fossil fuel.


I assume you are referring to "depletion allowance," which allows a tax deduction for the fact that the sale of the substance taxed results in less to be sold in the future. It will eventually run out. The government does not "spend" unless you are one of those who thinks the government owns everything.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Wilbur said...
I don't believe there is a single person whose vote will switch because of this. Can you identify one?

A whole bunch of people in PA are "Democrat voters", but work in the oil industry.

If 80% of them vote for Trump, because Biden will destroy their jobs and their lives, Trump wins PA in a blowout.

Yes, this is a big deal

tim in vermont said...

"People made up their minds a year ago. It's turnout and fraud, that's all that matters.”

The whole game is about dispiriting one side and energizing the other, you are right, but to suggest that things like Joe’s corruption aren’t going to be a factor in that game is kind of obtuse. Same as these bans from big tech will drive Republican turnout. It really doesn’t matter whether a huge number of votes are changed. Those half votes of people staying home or showing up based on the campaigns decide the election.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Jaw-Dropping Report Details Chinese State-Owned Company's Partnership With Biden, Kerry Families

Crooks. The democrat party is full of crooks. And it goes all the way up to the FBI.

tim in vermont said...

"Do people remember how just a few short years ago, Democrats had them *afraid* of fracking? “

I grew up in New York State on the border with PA, and it was pretty common in the ‘60s and ‘70s when I lived there, for people to be able to start the water running from their well and light their faucet with a match. Nobody had heard of fracking then, and they weren’t even drilling for natural gas there because they didn’t know how to recover it economically then. Then you see anti fracking people using this same phenomenon to condemn fracking.

The simplest response is that if natural gas (methane) caused cancer, we would all have ass cancer already from our farts, and lung cancer from smelling them.

Jamie said...

So here's the deal about"federal oil and gas subsidies." I encourage the curious to read the whole thing, but the upshot is that these so-called "subsidies" amount to some tax breaks that many more industries than just oil and gas can and do also take advantage of, and the weird contention that the cost of military defense of shipping lanes used, incidentally, by oil tankers is a "subsidy" to oil and gas. There's a tiny amount of actual government subsidy, on the order of $3bn, but the taxes paid by the oil and gas industry utterly dwarf that.

Um, wake up, sheeple...? Is that how you do it?

PM said...

Always fun re-reading Crichton's 2003 speech at CalTech: Aliens Cause Global Warming. It doesn't deny climates change; it decries the ignorant use of "Science!"

ngtrains said...

Picture the following:

A cordless combine moving across a 100 acre wheat field in central Kansas by 2045.
(Where do they carry the batteries.)

Maybe a long extension cord would be more effective.They could have a windmill at the
place where 4 fields come together.

How about no disposable items at a hospital. Wash or sterilize everything they use.

Big Mike said...

Anybody besides me notice how often Biden’s public remarks — and the sloganeering of extremist groups — have to be “explained” to us? “End fracking” doesn’t actually mean ending fracking. Except it does. Transitioning away from oil only means ending federal subsidies. Except the fools really think they could end our dependence on fossil fuels. Defunding the police doesn’t really mean defunding the police — except cities like Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis really have cut police budgets and reduced police department headcount. They are also scratching their heads over a rise in violent crime, fancy that.

Big Mike said...

Anybody besides me notice how often Biden’s public remarks — and the sloganeering of extremist groups — have to be “explained” to us? “End fracking” doesn’t actually mean ending fracking. Except it does. Transitioning away from oil only means ending federal subsidies. Except the fools really think they could end our dependence on fossil fuels. Defunding the police doesn’t really mean defunding the police — except cities like Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis really have cut police budgets and reduced police department headcount. They are also scratching their heads over a rise in violent crime, fancy that.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Like pouncing on perceived mistakes is a special, bad thing that Trump does. It's what all vigorous candidates do. Is WaPo so used to babying Biden that it thinks Trump is a big bully for holding him to his statements and taking them seriously?!

They're used to old-style Republicans with their high-minded earnestness that didn't fight back. None of them signed on for anything like a Trump presidency; where every shovelful of mud that they fling gets two in return.

mockturtle said...

I shudder to think what gas prices would be like under a Biden administration.

Danno said...

Ann, you better buy a long extension cord if Biden wins and you and Meade want to drive out to Colorado for your anniversary celebrations.

Original Mike said...

"and the weird contention that the cost of military defense of shipping lanes used, incidentally, by oil tankers is a "subsidy" to oil and gas."

And if you buy that, you'd think you'd be all in for domestic production and energy independence. But they're not.

Sebastian said...

"Did Biden misspeak, is he mistaken about the feasibility of ending the oil industry, or is this really a serious plan?"

And, and, and.

Yes, he misspoke, since he showed how radical moderate Joe and his lefty cronies actually are.

Yes, he is mistaken about the feasibility of life as we know it without oil.

Yes, he is really serious about effing industry and transportation and the economy for the sake of green illusions.

So, Althouse, still abstaining?

Tomcc said...

I have a distinct recollection of the primary debates when Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders made statements to the effect that global warming is an existential threat and each committed to ban fracking. (Did Mr. Biden use the term "new fracking"?- I don't recall)
Personally, I see energy independence as a BFD. One more issue where the Democratic party would like us Americans to relinquish our national sovereignty.

Bilwick said...

Re Big Mike's comments: Indeed. It's one of the reasons I've pretty much retired from debating with "liberals" and other State-fellators. They say A, and then when you argue against A, they say they're actually arguing B; and then when you argue against B, they either revert to A or come up with a variation on B (let's say B+1).I believe it's called "the Shifting Sands" method of argument, and I have found that it is a waste of time arguing or debating with people who use it: especially since some of them seem to be outright nutcases. (Some of whom have posted here.)

DeepRunner said...

The media are all-in. They will cover for Biden, protect Biden, primp his pillow as he lets his son pimp his name.

They have to protect what little domain they have left. Journalism is about stories. Journalists write fairy-tales.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ You are using the word "subsidy" in the same manner that the Dems are trying to use the term "court packing". It is disingenuous and dishonest.

“The Dems cry about the tax codes that they have mostly written. The codes allow oil companies to write off business expenses with a different amortization of their capital expenses. It is not a subsidy. It is a tax break that most large industries have because they pay the politicians for those breaks.”

It takes money to make money. At the simplest level, this means paying the clerks who ring up the sale for you. What taxable income is, is the difference between what you bring in less what it costs. The cost of doing business (paying the clerks, etc) is considered an expense. The amount of money brought in is considered gross income (or revenue), and gross income minus allowed expenses is the taxable income, on which taxes are assessed. ,

But I t all money spent to make money is equal. For the most part, when you pay someone wages, you will hav to pay them wages again next week, next month, etc, if you expect them to keep working for you. But some expenses profit you over a longer period of time, such as building a building, or buying equipment. Since you will benefit from these expenditures over a period of (usually) years, the IRS requires that you recapture the money spent, over a similar period of years, as “depreciation”. If you buy or build a building for $1 million, and it is expected to stand and be useful for 25 years (IRS would probably say closer to 40 years), then you are allowed to deduct maybe 4% ($40k) of the cost ($1m) a year for those 25 years as a depreciation expense, which is added to your other expenses every year, And deducted from gross income, for taxable income, until you get rid of the building, or it falls down. Etc. You also have to accumulate the depreciation year to year, as, you guessed it, “accumulated depreciation”. Then, when you get rid of the building (etc), you can deduct the accumulated depreciation from the sales price in order to determine profit or loss on the sale.

Keep that in mind - depreciation is nothing more than allowing you to deduct money that you have already spent (to make money) over a longer period of time, as an expense, because the asset purchased will be earning money for you longer than just one taxable period (typically a tax year). It is still money you spent to make money.

Oil and gas exploration is handled similarly, just a little differently. Depreciation amortizes your expenditure over tie as a metric. Oil, gas, and other mineral extraction use “depletion” instead of depreciation to recapture the money you spent creating the asset. The metric, instead of time, is units of production. Thus, the costs of exploration, drilling, and completion are recaptured (as expenses) by estimating how many units of production (e,g, barrels for oil) that can be expected. Thus, for example, if you spend $10 million to explore drill, and complete, an oil well, and expect it to produce a million barrels of oil, then every year you can deduct, as an expense of producing the oil, $10 per barrel produced that year, until the entire $10 million is recaptured. As with depreciation, depletion is merely a way to spread the expense of creating an income producing asset over a number of years, instead of allowing it to be taken as an expense the year you spent the money. It was your money. You invested it to make money. And can later offset it against the income produced.

That is essentially the “subsidy” that they are always talking about - the ability to offset the cost of making income against the income generated.

Contrast that with solar and wind subsidies, where the government (or utility company) actually gives you money, or supplies part of the money used to create an income producing asset. Very different.

DEEBEE said...

Biden’s remarks, as per WaPo were mostly peaceful towards the oil industry

Xmas said...

"Subsidies for the oil industry" are usually just complicated tax rules for depreciating oil industry equipment and expensing exploration costs.

This anti-oil subsidy site shows that these "subsidies" work out to about $2.5 billion a year. Compare this to the $86 billion a year ExxonMobil alone pays in taxes per year. Or compare it to the $35 billion a year collected in Federal fuel taxes for the Highway Fund.

pacwest said...

Let's make the energy we use to better our lives more expensive and harder to get. Best idea ever.

Lurker21 said...

How many joules of energy per year are provided by oil?

And speaking of joules, what about that big-ass diamond that Hunter has?

Bruce Hayden said...

The other absurd part of this is, is that there is no rational reason to cut back on fossil fuels in the first place. The left, subsidized and beholden to the Marxist Chinese, want us to cut back, because it will damage our economy, which is advantageous, geopolitically, to the Marxist Chinese. Harming our economy results in us not being able to buy as many aircraft carriers, fighter bombers, ICBMs, etc, making it easier for the Chinese to catch up with, then overmatch us, in these areas.

Otherwise, it makes little sense. It isn’t in our national interest. Real science says that there really isn’t a global warming problem, even though global warming would more likely benefit, and not hurt humanity. NOAA, ever cognizant that a large part of their annual budget is dependent upon proving the unprovable (CAGW), fudges the official temperature data more aggressively every several year, having to work ever harder to turn raw data that show a mild cooling trend into a fake warming trend. Bureaucrats do what they always do - try to prove themselves invaluable, so that their agency gets more money, and everyone involved gets promoted to supervise all of the new people they have to hire due to their fear mongering.

Notice anything there? Biden’s claim that he would have handled the COVID-19 pandemic better because he would have trusted the bureaucratic “experts” in the government tasked to oversee this sort of thing. Which, we all know is ludicrous, because the agencies involved were, at least initially, much more part of the problem, than of the solution. Where were the ventilators, masks, etc? Where was the testing? Instead of concentrating on planning for future pandemics, they were more worried about diversity outreach etc, and probably, today, the toxic white male medical environment. As government bureaucracies, their primary focus is inevitably on growing their agencies, instead of actually addressing the problems of pandemics.

Doug said...

“End fracking” doesn’t actually mean ending fracking. Except it does.

Democrats can never tell you what they REALLY WANT to do.
Otherwise, they would never get elected. They always explain later what their real intentions are. When it's too late and the election is already over.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Todd said:

I had a secret clearance when I was in the service and had I done anything REMOTELY like this, I would still be rotting in jail! They are all willfully ignorant and incurious when it comes to ANYTHING related to "their side".

I also had a security clearance (TS) with special program additions. Hillary was not grossly negligent, she deliberately spilled S/TS info in her emails. It took concerted effort to move that info from the classified servers to her home-brew email server. Anyone else would be spending 50-years at Ft. Leavenworth, KS.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

These so-called clean green-energy power sources are anything but clean. They require huge mining pits for the rare earth metals, huge swaths of terrain to install them on and huge transmission lines to get the power to the grid. Some of them fry any birds like bacon if the birds fly into the concentrated solar beams. Windmills and solar only last about 25-years and then they wind up in the landfill.

They are not economic, else they wouldn't require subsidies.

TreeJoe said...

See, the press has forgotten what a smoking gun story entails. They were so used to "smoking gun" stories being reported every years over Russia, almost all of which evaporated into thin air or were retracted, they've forgotten the standards:

1. Independent corrobation
2. Multiple named sources directly involved
3. No ACTUAL denial or contrary evidence present

Now this WSJ story, this is a smoking gun. No anonymous sources. No "those familiar with the matter" statements that are supposed to corroborate. No extremely careful parsing of language in a bad light.

The only thing I don't understand, and maybe it's coming, is that the Biden Laptop was seized by the FBI last year. Under Subpoena. FOR WHAT? That seems relevant, no?

Jim at said...

I never knew Republicans were big into giving tax money to subsidize unprofitable businesses. - Dumb Mark

Tell us more, Solyndra Boy.

gilbar said...

ngtrains said...
Picture the following:
A cordless combine moving across 1000 acre wheat fields in central Kansas by 2045. (Where do they carry the batteries.)

fify!

JaimeRoberto said...

Of course it's not a serious plan. I've been hearing it for as long as I can remember. As a kid I remember California going solar in the 70s. When I had a summer job at the Department of Energy in the 80s we were going to have fusion by the year 2000. Obama promised to deliver clean energy too. These plans aren't realistic, but people seem to want to hear it. It makes them feel good.

Anonymous said...

>The Dems cry about the tax codes that they have mostly written. The codes allow oil companies
> to write off business expenses with a different amortization of their capital expenses. It is
>not a subsidy. It is a tax break that most large industries have because they pay the
>politicians for those breaks."

It's not even a "tax break." Depletion is a necessary part of having an income-based tax, as opposed to a gross receipts-based tax.

hstad said...

"...Biden makes a big statement...!" Yep, he made several "big statements" which pretty much killed his chances of winning the Presidency. The comments which struck me:

1) Biden denied he said to "Ban Fracking".
2) Then he followed up with ending the entire oil industry.
3) The real whopper was Biden falsely claimed that "not one person lost their Insurance under Obamacare...". Truly a statement which every American had a bad experience when they filed their tax returns or paid their premiums or found out the massive deductibles.

Astonishing that such massive lies were pushed on a 'National Debate Platform' that are easily debunked, not by Liberal 'Factcheckers', but the average American watching the debate live.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Remember when Obama said "We can't drill our way to lower gas prices"? Joe believed Obama. He's missed all of the lower gas prices.

PM said...

I saved the original GND doc with the trains to Hawaii.

Bilwick said...

I wish "liberals" and other State-fellators would pounce--on books of economics and logic.

hstad said...


Blogger JaimeRoberto said..."...Of course it's not a serious plan..." 10/23/20, 1:49 PM

Sorry my friend that horse has left the barn! Political Leaders around the World have and are trying to bankrupt their countries in trying the "...not serious plan...". For example, Germany spend $2 trillion dollars on a national program for 'Wind and Solar' which today provides less than 3% of their total electricity (power needs). Resulting in the highest electricity prices in the World. Spain acted a similar program for 'Wind and Solar' and was touted as the best example of pollution free energy until the Spanish government ran out of money - no more subsidies. Which pushed the country into a recession where over 25,000 subsidized businesses disappeared and the country has yet to recover from their 20 year spending binge experiment. In the U.S., California has embarked on no more coal power plants, reducing their energy production to where over 50% of the state's energy comes from out of state. This began to get noticed lately since over the past 5 years we've had brownouts and blackouts (not enough power from out of state). Resulting in CA having the highest electricity costs in the USA since price is the only regulator which works.

So you see, our political leaders acting out on "...it's not a serious plan..." are decimating decades of economic progress pursing 'political lies' promulgated by bad science and economics. Taking this to the obvious conclusion, if you push any economy to recession or depression from such faulty views, the consequence is increased pollution. Alternative energy sources of the past will be used as a substitute by the average consumer. Such as burning wood, using your own gasoline generator for your house, or taking us back to the 18th - 19th centuries sources of energy - wood and manure as an example. Unfortunately, a lot of people will suffer for these "...not a serious plan..." with their living standards and lives lost.

hstad said...


Blogger JaimeRoberto said..."...Of course it's not a serious plan..." 10/23/20, 1:49 PM

Sorry my friend that horse has left the barn! Political Leaders around the World have and are trying to bankrupt their countries in trying the "...not serious plan...". For example, Germany spend $2 trillion dollars on a national program for 'Wind and Solar' which today provides less than 3% of their total electricity (power needs). Resulting in the highest electricity prices in the World. Spain acted a similar program for 'Wind and Solar' and was touted as the best example of pollution free energy until the Spanish government ran out of money - no more subsidies. Which pushed the country into a recession where over 25,000 subsidized businesses disappeared and the country has yet to recover from their 20 year spending binge experiment. In the U.S., California has embarked on no more coal power plants, reducing their energy production to where over 50% of the state's energy comes from out of state. This began to get noticed lately since over the past 5 years we've had brownouts and blackouts (not enough power from out of state). Resulting in CA having the highest electricity costs in the USA since price is the only regulator which works.

So you see, our political leaders acting out on "...it's not a serious plan..." are decimating decades of economic progress pursing 'political lies' promulgated by bad science and economics. Taking this to the obvious conclusion, if you push any economy to recession or depression from such faulty views, the consequence is increased pollution. Alternative energy sources of the past will be used as a substitute by the average consumer. Such as burning wood, using your own gasoline generator for your house, or taking us back to the 18th - 19th centuries sources of energy - wood and manure as an example. Unfortunately, a lot of people will suffer for these "...not a serious plan..." with their living standards and lives lost.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I also had a security clearance (TS) with special program additions. Hillary was not grossly negligent, she deliberately spilled S/TS info in her emails. It took concerted effort to move that info from the classified servers to her home-brew email server. Anyone else would be spending “50-years at Ft. Leavenworth, KS.”

Know a guy who briefed her at least once a quarter when she was Sec of State. Each time, she verbally acknowledged her duties to him. At that level, it had to have been a fairly regular occurrence. She was the primary classifier for the State Dept, and thus “owned” all of the classified data generated in all of our embassies, etc around the world (she was one of maybe 6 in the entire govt with that sort of power). This meant additional training and more forms to sig acknowledging her duties. Proving actual knowledge of her duties, beyond a reasonable doubt would no doubt have been child’s play in court - just get a couple of those lie that guy I know who routinely briefed her to testify.

BTW - DOE “Q” security clearance here throughout the 1980s. Took six months to get, with a similar FBI investigation that those with military clearances undergo. Ended up needing a lie detector test to get the clearance, due to allegations of drug usage a decade earlier when I was in college. I was in and out of most of the DOE national laboratories west of the Mississippi, supporting, or supposedly supervising (because I had a Master’s degree) those who supported, the computer equipment manufactured by my employer. Much of it was at Sandia in Albuquerque, where much of the design of our nuclear devices was being done. Never got closer than maybe 20 feet to any of the classified data there, which was fine with me.

Steven said...

If Biden announced a plan to execute every child under two years old on the day after inauguration, the mainstream media account the next day would be "Republicans Pounce on Biden Misstatement".

ken in tx said...

Leftists have been whining about the oil depletion allowance since the early 1960s, at least. My economics professor explained that it was just a special case of depreciation, and I don't see why an honest person would see anything wrong with it. It's not a subsidy.

Rusty said...

Kate said...
"If he's giving subsidies to solar and wind, he's giving to oil. Oil loooooves solar and wind. Its unreliability guarantees oil usage."
Mostly because it takes a lot of petroleum products to manufacture both. Leland said...
"
It's going to happen anyway. Already oil demand is on the decline. And if you are worried about the oil industry, perhaps first be worried about the airline industry. Much of the demand decline is from the airline industry no longer flying."
Corona virus. Unless you can come up with a more efficient mode of getting from Chicago to LA I'm all ears.

We will always need petroleum products in one form or another. Right now it happens to gasoline, A1 and home heating oil.