Home | About | Donate

'These Two Things Are Related': As Big Oil Ups Donations to Dems, Biden Says Banning Fossil Fuels Within Next Decade 'Not Possible'

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/16/these-two-things-are-related-big-oil-ups-donations-dems-biden-says-banning-fossil

Some people are over promising, demanding, and wanting. When I heard Biden give his reasoning it sounded to me like someone that won’t over-promise something he can’t, or won’t, deliver.
His reasons match my own about how quickly the transition should be tackled.
Hell, my 93 Dodge van may still be on the road in 2030.

3 Likes

Sadly, Biden is correct. The entire human grid worldwide is built on petroleum and other fossil fuels.
In the case of petroleum, it’s not just the foundation for energy supplies, it’s also used in a vast plethora of other materials that we can’t live without, including fertilizers.
If someone was to attempt to remove all fossil fuels from use, our entire civilization would collapse, and contrary to the marketing propaganda of the so-called sustainable energy industries, there is no environmentally-benign way to replace the fossil fuel/petroleum grid with technoutopian hardware such as solar and wind or anything else.
Our species has made a huge mistake in creating a population overshoot only possible by using fossil fuels to make an ecocidal worldwide grid to support billions more of us than the biosphere should be asked to support.
We’re a mass extinction event. If our species tries to unbuild this ruinous grid, it will result in economic and sociocultural catastrophe. But the continuation of our population overshoot and our grid will result in mass extinction for most organisms on this planet, within 75 years.
Read the two Endgame books by Derrick Jensen.
The much-persecuted truth-telling movie, Planet of the Humans, explains our terrible mistakes from the past, and the folly of the “green” energy profiteers and the Green New Deal, which isn’t really green at all.
Don’t like what I’m saying? Then watch this and hear the facts:
~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDIEqHGAveA&t=2741s

2 Likes

My headline: BANNING FOSSIL FUELS IN THE NEXT DECADE NOT IMPOSSIBLE BUT BIDEN DISAGREES.

7 Likes

I agree. Ten years is definitely not enough time to get people transferred over to green energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels. I’d say if we can get the entire population on board with this idea in ten years we will be doing well.

One thing that I wish SOMEONE of importance would talk about is the need to get people weaned off of animal products, since animal agriculture accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector combined. I just don’t see any hope of overcoming climate change without dealing with this issue, and also human overpopulation and the philosophy of endless growth.

5 Likes

This is why I wrote in Bernie Sanders.

4 Likes

The answer, as always, “who is going to pay for it?”
That answer, as always, “The People.”
(s\ we are a socialist country afterall /s)

~https://www.visualcapitalist.com/tracking-the-growing-wave-of-oil-gas-bankruptcies-in-2020/

~https://www.visualcapitalist.com/range-evs-major-highway-routes/

~https://www.visualcapitalist.com/esg-megatrend-green-bonds/

Fun stuff.

“ Yes it is. And we’re going to do it," countered Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media.“

And you Jamie have no idea what you are talking about… There is ZERO scientific data to support the claim that fossil fuels can be replaced in 10 years.

“In the nineteenth century, Huber pointed out, “capitalists proclaim[ed] laws to limit the working day, bans on, and other moral basics were simply ‘impossible.’”

There is a insane difference between passing labor laws and overhauling the entire energy industry to move off fossil fuels. For a supposed scientist Mr. Huber is quite possibly a moron.

“Although progressives are pushing for a faster timeline for transforming the country’s energy infrastructure”

Interesting how all of these new timeframes are being proposed without the inclusion of any data, projection modeling, production analysis or feasibility analysis. I mean if we are going to completely disregard data and makeup timeframes why don’t we just say we will all be running off of clean fairy dust tomorrow? Congrats everyone we solved the climate crisis no need to use any energy every again.

2 Likes

This is not accurate at all… Please keep in mind that animal agriculture emissions is a subset of agriculture emissions, so do not make the mistake of claiming net agricultural emissions for just animal agriculture

OK, I understand the problem with ‘banning’ fossil fuels but here’s the nucleus of it: STOP SUBSIDIZING THEM !!! Then the petroleum industry can focus on polluting the world with plastic!
JJH

1 Like

Anytime you’d like to provide substitutes for every fossil fuel product at commercial scale would be great…

Here’s one - 99% of all hydrogen produced in the US is made through the process of steam reformation, which requires methane and naphtha. Hydrogen is critically important for large number of industries, but perhaps most importantly it is used with nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizer which our entire crop production relies on pretty heavily.

So what substitute process currently exists to produce 9.8 million cubic meters of hydrogen per year?

These fools are intent on working with Joe (Dirty) Dough

And he’s hell bent on working them over

1 Like

Of course these two things are related. Duh! Know much about how things work in Washington?

But that doesn’t mean that what Joe says isn’t true. There’s no way you could ever ban fossil fuels in ten years. That’s just silly.

Think of all the automobiles that would have to be replaced - cars that haven’t even been manufactured yet. What about domestic heaters? Do you use natural gas or heating oil to heat your home? How about all the electric power plants? Want to replace them with even more dangerous and dirty nuclear power plants? Been to Fukushima or Chernobyl?

And even if you could accomplish something so monumental, getting the rest of the world, and especially the third world, to go along would be even more impossible.

Approaching the problem with rose colored glasses accomplishes nothing. It just keeps you occupied in the dream world and out of their way.

Let’s start by exorcising the body politic of big oil and the rest of corporate America. Some properly crafted campaign finance legislation fixes that in a NY minute, but it’s a difficult climb, considering the vast majority of our pols are suckling at that teat.

And if you really want to help the environment you should promote zero (or even negative) population growth. Either that or things like viruses and war mongers will do it for us at great pain. Anything is manageable in smaller numbers and impossible when the numbers pass a certain point.

1 Like

Anybody who said it was would be an idiot. Listen to yourselves.

Whats with all the ridiculous posturing?

Just the one country, China, alone, cannot have the lifestyle we Americans take for granted, we would need 5 more Earths for cars and trucks and shopping at Home Depo, another 3 more for India to get with it.
But really we are arranging lawnchairs on planet Titanic.
Good luck with a clever way out of overly spectacular survival success, wisdom would have been a better choice.
No worries, its been real, and all life is related in this magnificent multiverse, there’s probably abundant time enough for us to cohabitate an alternate space-time persistent illusion. See y’all in a couple megacycles, maybe Hitler’s & Trump’s parents use a rubber next iteration.

2 Likes

We got to the moon in ten years, we beat the axis powers in less than five. Only an energy troll would say we can’t get off fossil fuels in ten years. It’s a matter of will, especially when solar electricity is the cheapest form of electric power now. BTW electric is a good way of making hydrogen.

I can’t never could. Over 40 years ago when I was still in the military, I had been in the field for about 5 days or so on an exercise. When I got back my boss’s deputy asked me if I accomplished everything I had wanted to do on the exercise. I told him no, that I had gotten the big ones but there were some that we couldn’t get to. "Well, he said, “that’s probably good. If you had accomplished everything then maybe you didn’t set your sights high enough.” That comment has stuck with me all these years.

Biden needs to reach higher, the same way the Squad’s and Thunberg’s of the world are doing. Maybe we can’t do it in 10 years, but if we don’t try it is absolutely certain that we won’t.

Many of us are not voting for Biden, we are voting against Trump. We need to really put the pressure on Biden beginning on Day 1 to push for the Green New Deal. This is the only inhabitable planet that we know of in the universe. Let’s try not to completely poison it before we wake up.

1 Like

Yeah and you’re talking about redesigning an energy infrastructure system over three times the size of the distance from the earth to moon. Just a cool 750,000 miles…

Wtf are talking about… your comparing the construction of 60,000 tanks to the manufacturing of 2 BILLION solar panels? Are you mathematically challenged?

The scales are obviously insanely different. And that’s not even getting into the legal clusterf@ck that is heavy civil and utility scale infrastructure dealing with Native American rights, environmental regulation and land access, which the space race NOR WW2 ever had to deal with when it came to production…

~https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/

Not really related to what I’m talking about. I’m saying like for instance installing wind power or transmission lines or storage banks in “land bridge” and “tundra” access areas