Home | About | Donate

Pete Buttigieg Calls for Carbon Capture and Tax—Climate Proposals Backed by the Fossil Fuel Industry

Pete Buttigieg Calls for Carbon Capture and Tax—Climate Proposals Backed by the Fossil Fuel Industry

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who rolled out his first batch of major policy proposals this week, expressed support for a carbon tax and carbon capture—policies backed by the fossil fuel industry but criticized by environmentalists as "a distraction from real solutions to the climate crisis that we face."

1 Like

The DNC is attempting to use identity politics to divide and conquer the growing progressive movement and those that might be naturally drawn to real progressive candidates like Bernie and Tulsi.


Carbon (dioxide) capture seems to be a bit of a ruse to me. It would take additional energy to capture, compress and inject carbon dioxide into the earth. The oil and gas industry may like it because it could be used to drive more crude oil and gas to the production wells, a process known as secondary recovery. The industry is probably dreaming of a subsidy scheme no doubt. While I have not whipped out my calculator to perform the appropriate second-law-of-thermodynamics calculations that I would like to see, I am skeptical of the process and have been since I first heard of it about thirty years ago.


I guess he found that ‘Middle Ground’ that Ol Joe was a lookin’ fer - LOL
I dont’ trust people who don’t scare the hell out of Corporate America and MIC


Buttigieg is not wrong about pricing carbon. While I’m skeptical of carbon capture for the same reasons as WiseOwl is, there is really no dispute that raising the price of GHG emissions is an important step to curbing them. Here in California, the state is set to meet its climate goals, but GHG emissions from transportation are what is holding it back. As a result, the state is looking at reducing congestion and capacity increasing roadway projects via the California Environmental Quality Act as a back door way of increasing the price of emissions. If projects that increase capacity are a significant impact environment, then sponsors are obligated to mitigate them by reducing vehicle miles traveled. In so doing, the hope is entities will invest in public transportation up front rather than build projects that induce travel and cost more to build due to extra mitigation costs.

Just think about gas prices. As they increase, people look for alternative ways of travel and switch to more efficient vehicles.


Paul Street:

The Democrats were neoliberal partners in Trump’s ascent; now they seem determined to ensure the second term of a presidency that could ring the death knell for what’s left of U.S.-American democracy. Loathe to impeach the impeachment-worthy Trump since they think (correctly perhaps) that action would enhance his chances for re-election in 2020, establishment Democrats are working hard again, as in 2015-16, to undermine the presidential candidacy of the Democratic contender who is most able and ready to rally the disadvantaged constituencies who will have to turn out if the orange monster is going to be removed by ballot in 2020.

That candidate is the neo-New Deal progressive-populist Bernie Sanders. He is the target of a multi-pronged “Stop Sanders” movement within the Democratic Party and across its many establishment media and non-profit outposts. This reactionary operation includes at least ten related lines of attack:

+1. Flooding the primary campaign with such an absurdly large number of candidates [Buttigieg] that Sanders will likely be unable to garner the majority of primary delegates required for a first-ballot nomination at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

+2. Coordination among the Democratic Convention superdelegates—the more than 350 county and state party bosses and elected officials who are granted delegate status without election—to vote as a bloc to stop Sanders on the convention’s second ballot. (These superdelegates exist precisely for the purpose of blocking challengers to the party’s corporate establishment.)

+3. Ongoing efforts to change state party elections from caucuses to primaries, as caucuses are friendlier to progressive challengers. (Sanders won 11 of the nation’s 18 caucus states three years ago.)

+4. The disingenuous theft of many of Sanders’ sincerely held progressive policies by corporate candidates who have no intention of fighting to implement them if they attain the presidency.

+5. Appealing to the name recognition of the right-wing corporatist-imperialist Joe Biden, along with the public’s misplaced nostalgia for Barack Obama’s Wall Street-captive presidency—both of which will be wielded as weapons against Sanders’ progressive populism.

+6. Repeated identity-wielding “gotchya” efforts to make Bernie seem indifferent to Black and female voters.

+7. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s sickening decision to block contracts with campaign consultants and other political vendors who agree to work for progressive challengers in the 2020 primaries. (Besides seeking to protect Congress itself as a corporate preserve, this move aims to deny Sanders congressional allies and undermine his ability to govern if elected.)

+8. Recurrent claims that Sanders “isn’t a Democrat” even though Bernie has long functioned essentially as one in Congress and Vermont politics (his “Independent” status is for show).

+9. Smearing Sanders’ popular social-democratic policy agenda as “fantastic,” “unaffordable,” “unrealistic” and too dangerously “socialist”—this while Democratic elites refuse to acknowledge the fascist tendencies of the president they helped elect in 2016.

+10. Branding the eminently electable Sanders “unelectable” on the grounds that he is an “extremist” who is “too far left” for the U.S. electorate generally and independent voters specifically. In reality, the opposite is true. Sanders appeals to independents (who are nowhere near as conservative as is commonly reported), people of color, infrequent voters and the white working-class that has largely abandoned the Democratic Party. His anti-establishment message, coupled with his long record of representing rural voters, makes him highly competitive with Trump, not only in the Rust Belts states where Hillary Clinton faltered but even in some dark red states like West Virginia. (Even Karl Rove believes Sanders could defeat Trump in 2020.)

It’s nasty stuff, but it’s nothing new and nobody should be surprised. The Democratic Party exists to serve its corporate clients. Consistent with their party’s Big Business bankrollers’ bottom line world view, establishment Democrats would rather lose to a fascistic white-Amerikaner right than to even the mildly social-democratic left within their own party. It’s why the late left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin labeled them “the Inauthentic Opposition.”



WOW. Thanks for this one!
I’ve ranted about some of this (especially #1) but could never have said it as well.

1 Like

Another do-nothing with more do-nothing proposals. If he is elected, he’ll enjoy the benefits the fossil fuel industry will reap upon him while he does nothing for climate change. The only one to trust is Bernie.


Another tool of the Oil Industry.

Mayor Pete enjoys biting off more than he can eschew.


I don’t have a problem with a carbon fee and dividend (1) as one of many, but not the only strategy, and (2) certainly not one to lead with. Plus, the devil is in the details (for example, the fee needs to at be assessed at the source of extraction, the fee has to large enough to make a difference, and, by definition, there can’t be any loopholes)…

Carbon capture technologies (as described in the article) at any scale are currently non-existent - see recent youtube videos by climatologist, Kevin Anderson on this. Fine to invest in research no them, but you cannot count on them AT ALL as a main solution. Moreover, things like carbon farming, ecologically based reforrestation, and extending the carbon capture potential of deeply rooted gresslands - things that are already being practiced - can be greatly amplified.

I wonder if Buttigieg is familiar with Project Drawdown?


Yes, and that is why I have labeled the Democratic Party for a long time: THE FAKE OPPOSITION PARTY. Sheldon Wolin’s essay where he calls American Democracy: " Inverted Totalitarianism" is an excellent read.


You really think candidates running on their own, raising money on their own, meeting with voters daily, traveling across the country, aren’t trying to win themselves? That’s a level of conspiracism and victimology I can’t fathom. I mean, Kamala Harris didn’t say Biden would make a great VP as a dig at Bernie, did she?

1 Like

Pete is another late comer to the Climate Change / Game of Bones many have already made part of their campaigns to win over voters. Sanders said it first, then Warren used his idea, and too many others. Now it’s gotten to the point where candidates Know they must include it. So who do we believe… if any? One candidate alone will not be able to take on the Fossil Fuel Industry. Anyone who believes them needs a reality check. As super storms ravage the Midwest with tornados and baseball size hail, not one coal or oil plant has shut down. So who’s fooling who?

1 Like

Mayor Bouillabaisse is a flash in the pan.


The financialization of carbon dioxide by the same US industries that produces (five billion metric tonnes) of carbon dioxide per year sounds like a plan? But, I like the idea it will ‘put money back in our pocket’. Now that is hot air (CO2) you can believe in!


…and Tulsi. Seems there is one candidate who has been eviscerated in the media and in the Democratic Party for saying exactly this. I’m waiting on the apologies to stream out. https://sputniknews.com/world/201905191075139865-susan-standon-pamela-anderson-leaked-opcw-memo/


Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are dream candidates for Trump - because Trump could easily beat either one (or both) of them.

That is why these two are the Main Stream Media’s favorite candidates. MSM and Democratic ® Party are owned by the oligarchy and the oligarchy owns Trump.


Like nuclear, while it appears to be an answer to Anthropogenic Climate Disruption, carbon capture has the problem of that pesky waste. Returning carbon back into the earth does not mean it will remain there much like nuclear waste does not remain in its holding facilities (see Fukushima Daiichi). The permafrost melt is proof that carbon captured does not remain in the ground. There is also the matter of the material extraction required to build the carbon capture equipment plus the energy required to run it. Another fantasy that all our problems can be solved through technology with no sacrifice required of we mere mortals.


Running as a Democrat is already a major strike against any candidate. Being affiliated with a corrupt and self serving Anti American organization like the Republicans and Democrats is reason for severe suspicion and willful prejudice all by itself. To still vote for said individuals should have the minimum selective criteria:

1.) Receiving and having received no corporate funding directly or via a PAC
2.) A history of being extremely vocal against corruption in government
3.) Advancing legislation aggressively to radically resolve the climate emergency.
4.) Advancing legislation to radically Reform the tax structure on behalf of the working population.
5.) They must be hated by the political establishment they are a part of, as in their agendas not supported within that party.
6.) they must not change their agenda between campaigning, and serving in office - or forever be blacklisted from political office permanently.

1 Like

There is someone who is running precisely about climate change: Governor of Washington State Jay Inlsee. What 's interesting to me is, if you got most of your info from the MSM, you woulndn’t even know that he’s running. And also that the one former occupation that has produced the greatest number of US presidents is state governor - and as far as I know, he’s only goveror running for the DP nomination…