Does Joe Biden Want to Ban Fracking?

His written climate plans have been consistent, but his rhetoric has, at times, created confusion.

By
11

During the vice presidential debate on Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence claimed on at least three occasions that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in favor of banning fracking. 

“They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking, which would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs all across the heartland,” he said.

Harris came back with the following rebuttal:

“Joe Biden will not end fracking. He has been very clear about that.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
11
By
Comments (11)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Matt C

    The amount of fracking that occurs on federal lands is a rather small amount of overall fracking. The large majority is on private lands. This is another instance of Biden saying something to appeal and appease the left-wing base, but in terms of actual policy, it won't have a big effect.

    I don't doubt they may increase regulations that make it tougher on private lands, but the very limited nature of the Biden policy, along with the reality of the current energy markets (that doesn't appear to be changing much anytime soon if Saudi Arabia has much say, which it of course does), makes it clear that though both sides are playing their political games with various comments, there is nothing that will have any major real world impacts here in the next few years.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    If the country supports the candidates' positions, why won't the candidates tell us honestly what their positions are?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Because honesty, they believe, doesn't sell. Or get policy passed.

      I think more than ever, now, it would. Be honest with American's, and they will be honest or more reasonable to your position. Of course, some positions are just ludicrous, and hence, they have to be sold under dishonesty. "If you like your doctor, you can keep him". Or, "Sadam has weapons of mass destruction" (possible, but we never found any). Etc. Etc.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        I think part of it is that, what some candidates are honest about what they propose, it takes only a few minutes for someone to observe, "That way lies mass murder." Proposals to take all the guns away from American citizens, for example. How are you going to do that without mass murder?

        Daughter A proposed, as a solution to the "kids in cages" border crisis, that all the Central American migrants should be relocated to vacant farmland in the Midwest. "What if they they don't want to live in Nebraska? What if they want to live in Houston, where their family members are?"
        "Too bad. If they want us to take care of them, they'll have to go."
        "What if they try to go back to Houston?"
        "Um ..."
        In charity, she might have been drunk (on vodka or Trump-hatred) at the time, but you can see how quickly a brilliant idea turns into "and shoot them if they try to leave the kolkhoz."

        Collapse
    2. Ingenero.lux

      That’s a very good question. Right up there with how we’ll replace at least 80% of the power production in the United States in the next 15 years. The question of how it will be 100% clean is entirely beside the point, how in the world can you replace about 30 quads (thirty quadrillion BTUs) of energy production in fifteen years, especially when some of your heavy supporters want to cut back on the 11 quads of clean energy we already get from nuclear and hydroelectric power? Especially when all the wind, solar, and geothermal projects we’ve had going on for many years amount to only four quads? (Source the LLNL’s nice US energy flow map found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AEnergy_Flow_US_2019.png). We will supposedly add four times more clean energy in the next fifteen years than we have managed since Edison developed power generation stations. The mind boggles.

      Collapse
      1. Geezing Harry

        Concur with the premise and outcome of your comment. It is unfortunate that our (American public) 1) attention span and 2) thinking and reasoning capacity of the many individuals who make up that public will not allow a public conversation on this issue, so it's left to the specialists.

        ALSO appreciate the link to LLNL energy flow chart. The 'rejected energy' percentage is staggering.

        Collapse
        1. Ingenero.lux

          Looked at that - I’m pretty sure that’s a combination of thermodynamic loss in converting heat to electricity, electricity transmission loss, and building/process inefficiency. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a cruel master, while we can reduce some of this, the bulk of it is simply the cost of doing business.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        Thank you, that was very informative. I'm very interested in power, because I don't like freezing in the dark.

        My suspicion is that we're expected to believe that all this non-fossil-fuel energy will appear, and be available at a low cost to consumers, if we can just get rid of all the Bad People doing Bad Things for Bad Motives who are always standing between the Good People and the paradise they deserve.

        Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Biden does wish to ban fracking. Even if he’s pretending or whatever, it’s his fault for over and over and over being caught on camera, saying he wishes to get rid of it.

    Just like when Trump says something stupid, even if it’s not true (like the stupid comments about waiting and seeing after the election about stepping down after losing), if you make the stupid statement, it’s your fault and your opposition has every right to rail on you.

    Joe Biden did say he will ban fracking, and will not take a position about packing the courts (silly by the way).

    So it’s not his oppositions fault that they are running with it: it’s his for saying it. Even if he does neither because he wins In November, maybe he should learn to be a better politician?

    Oh wait he’s 78 never mind. Same for Trump.

    Neither are changing at this point.

    Not a fan of comfortablysmug always but:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/1300497053710192641?lang=en

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    Let’s just clear this up once and for all. Trump said he was building a wall and that Mexico would pay for it. You were dumb to believe that would happen. Biden says he’s okay with fracking. Same phenomenon.

    Joe Biden is.....*leans back and taps on mic with fingers*.......A POLITICIAN

    The private land distinction sounds important if you’ve never tried to do literally anything to your house and/or property.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Vlad M.

    I'm not sure anyone believes Biden can dismantle fracking overnight. That doesn't mean he won't do it in time. His statements are clear enough: " We would make sure it's eliminated".

    Collapse