2020 Democrats Step Up Pressure on Fossil-Fuel Industry in Climate Fight

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The oil & gas industry continues to come under increasingly hostile political attacks from the U.S. far left.  The escalating rhetoric is really becoming unhinged, and devoid from reality.

By 2020, we will find out which will be victorious:

● Virtue Signalling

● Darwin Awards

 

2020 Democrats Step Up Pressure on Fossil-Fuel Industry in Climate Fight

Bernie Sanders says the industry is a criminal enterprise. Joe Biden is vowing to take action against it. Other candidates are competing to say who will wean America from its products the soonest.

The fossil fuel industry is squarely in the cross hairs of Democrats running for the White House as they move sharply to the left on climate change, evoking growing alarm from a sector that’s found a cheerleader in the Trump administration. It has moved to rescind regulations on oil drilling and proposed extraordinary measures to aid coal mining.

“We are made to be just some kind of evil force,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas producers. “They are doubling down on it and adding very hostile rhetoric.” 

Big oil and its Republican allies say the Democrats’ swing to the left on the issue will backfire with voters, especially in states such as Ohio that Trump won in part with an appeal to aggrieved coal miners. These critics have commissioned studies asserting that the Democratic polices would cost millions of jobs while increasing pump prices for gasoline.

But that hasn’t deterred candidates, such as Sanders, a Vermont senator.

“We’ve got to ask ourselves a simple question: What do you do with an industry that knowingly, for billions of dollars in short-term profits, is destroying this planet?” Sanders said during the most recent Democratic candidate debate. “I say that is criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue.”

...

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Fossil Fuel is likely to be dead in another 50 years.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Fossil Fuel is likely to be dead in another 50 years.  

Replaced by what, exactly?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

There was an article on Oil Price, just recently (possibly today), that discussed this very issue.  

Renewable energy is a lot cheaper in the long run then oil.  That was the gist of it.  

 

Title: The Threat That Will Send Oil to 10 by Nicholas Cunningham.  

I don't know if he's right.  But it was an interesting read.  And it sounds reasonable.  50 years is a very long time.  

Edited August 8, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

I don't see a viable, economically feasible replacement for hydrocarbons any time soon.  For many decades.

Although the "Keep Oil & Gas In The Ground Forever" brigade can be endlessly amusing to watch as they froth at the mouth and stamp their feet and threaten and offer no realistically viable replacement for hydrocarbons.

Sound and fury and stupidity and virtue signalling.

Most electricity globally is generated via hydrocarbons, so don't go venturing down the stupidity trail of saying electricity or batteries will replace hydrocarbons.  If you do, I will be laughing at you, not with you.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Alright. I can agree with that.  For many decades.  

You may not have to worry about this, but I do.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

32 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Fossil Fuel is likely to be dead in another 50 years.  

They said the same thing 50 years ago...

[Zhong Lu + 845]

And sooner or later they'll be right.  

Here's my reasoning: EVs are coming.  (but don't buy TSLA- the company is still a nonprofitable blargh monster).  

Self-automated self-driving cars are a million times more convenient then the "normal" cars we have on the road today.  Imagine what it would be like to not have to worry about rush hour (because you can just watch a movie o rtake a nap and let the car drive itself).  

Once they can hammer the price down to reasonable levels, almost all cars will be self-automated in the future. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

A broken clock is correct twice a day...

I suggest that you go back around 3 decades and see what the global hydrocarbon reserves were and then compare them to the global reserves reported today. Fossil fuels will not be 'dead' due to lack of fossil fuels.

Furthermore, they will not be dead due to renewable energy scams UNLESS those scams can prove to be constant ( not intermittent due to weather, etc,,,), able to supply the present and growing demand for energy AND not require a fossil fuel backup system for when they fail OR cannot keep up with demand.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The oil & gas industry continues to come under increasingly hostile political attacks from the U.S. far left.  The escalating rhetoric is really becoming unhinged, and devoid from reality.

By 2020, we will find out which will be victorious:

● Virtue Signalling

● Darwin Awards

 

2020 Democrats Step Up Pressure on Fossil-Fuel Industry in Climate Fight

Bernie Sanders says the industry is a criminal enterprise. Joe Biden is vowing to take action against it. Other candidates are competing to say who will wean America from its products the soonest.

The fossil fuel industry is squarely in the cross hairs of Democrats running for the White House as they move sharply to the left on climate change, evoking growing alarm from a sector that’s found a cheerleader in the Trump administration. It has moved to rescind regulations on oil drilling and proposed extraordinary measures to aid coal mining.

“We are made to be just some kind of evil force,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas producers. “They are doubling down on it and adding very hostile rhetoric.” 

Big oil and its Republican allies say the Democrats’ swing to the left on the issue will backfire with voters, especially in states such as Ohio that Trump won in part with an appeal to aggrieved coal miners. These critics have commissioned studies asserting that the Democratic polices would cost millions of jobs while increasing pump prices for gasoline.

But that hasn’t deterred candidates, such as Sanders, a Vermont senator.

“We’ve got to ask ourselves a simple question: What do you do with an industry that knowingly, for billions of dollars in short-term profits, is destroying this planet?” Sanders said during the most recent Democratic candidate debate. “I say that is criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue.”

...

Tom, I say just let them keep at it. They are losing credibility every time they collectively open their mouths. The voting public is watching this as a form of entertainment....pass the popcorn!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

35 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tom, I say just let them keep at it. They are losing credibility every time they collectively open their mouths. The voting public is watching this as a form of entertainment....pass the popcorn!

 

Yep.  To reiterate:

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

By 2020, we will find out which will be victorious:

● Virtue Signalling

● Darwin Awards

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

47 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

And sooner or later they'll be right.  

Here's my reasoning: EVs are coming.  (but don't buy TSLA- the company is still a nonprofitable blargh monster).  ...

 

Apparently you missed my point earlier:

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I don't see a viable, economically feasible replacement for hydrocarbons any time soon.  For many decades.  ...

... Most electricity globally is generated via hydrocarbons, so don't go venturing down the stupidity trail of saying electricity or batteries will replace hydrocarbons. 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tom, I say just let them keep at it. They are losing credibility every time they collectively open their mouths. The voting public is watching this as a form of entertainment....pass the popcorn!

Now you've gone and triggered me.  But don't worry, there is a win-win solution:

Democratic Socialist Convention To Communicate Via Interpretive Dance To Avoid Offending Any Attendees

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Bernie Sanders says the industry is a criminal enterprise.

This is so disconnected from reality that it's mind-boggling! If he really feels this way, he should do something about all the cows in his state, Vermont: those Holsteins (like all cattle) have multiple stomachs that ruminate and belch almost pure methane gas into the environment. Cattle make up 37% of greenhouse gases, according to scientists. Dinosaurs were ruminative too. Was the overpopulation of dinosaurs what created their die-off? It wasn't planes, trains and cars, that's for sure. Of the fifty or so climate changes the planet has endured, according to geologists, it's so strange that this one is caused by a "criminal enterprise," but all the others just happened. 

The propaganda that is emitting from people like AOC, adopted handily by Bernie and others, was sort of funny at first, but it's amazing how rapidly the young and innocent are picking it up as chapter and verse--almost like some sort of Communist Manifesto. If, God forbid, one of these fringe characters claims the Oval Office, renewables will be subsidized wildly while hydrocarbons--no matter how clean and how much carbon capture--are taxed until some sort of sea change eventually occurs. The estimate for that? $100 Trillion. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

< eye roll + face palm >

Trump hates America, but thankfully California loves us

Trump wants to keep us addicted to oil and pollution, California wants to free us

President Donald Trump’s efforts to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards would keep America addicted to oil and dramatically increase U.S. air pollution.

But California is trying to free us from oil and pollution, through a deal it struck recently with Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW to avoid the full rollback. That deal would accelerate deployment of high efficiency electric vehicles (EVs).

So, naturally, the Trump Administration is trying to kill the California deal — and end California’s long-standing ability to negotiate stronger car standards than the Federal government.

Yet a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) last week makes clear that the rapid price drops in the cost of batteries that have driven the EV revolution this decade will continue for the next decade.

So while Trump can slow adoption of high-efficiency EVs in the United States, other countries — the EU and especially China — will simply keep adopting them so quickly that he cannot stop the global EV revolution.

Trump’s pro-oil moves ensure only that U.S. companies and workers are far less likely to be the major beneficiaries of this massive job-creating revolution.  ...

 

... California working to free us from Big Oil

California has long held a waiver giving it the ability to set its own, tougher, fuel efficiency standards. And since the state has such a huge car-centric economy, these tougher standards have forced car companies to meet the state’s standards. At the same time, over a dozen other states now use California’s standards.

A second BNEF analysis last week found that, if California’s new standards were “adopted nationally, they would require around half the EV sales share to close the gap between automakers’ performance and their targets,” compared to Obama’s original standards.

Trump’s policies are therefore doubly backwards. First, his lower standards mean much higher carbon pollution and much higher urban air pollution in this country. Second, the EV revolution is unstoppable globally. So, throttling back the national EV market merely leaves U.S. car companies and workers lagging behind in the most important vehicle revolution in a century.

But just as Trump looks backward in his efforts to promote the climate-destroying fuels of the twentieth century, he also looks backward to promote the inefficient, highly polluting internal combustion engine cars of the last century.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Most electricity globally is generated via hydrocarbons, so don't go venturing down the stupidity trail of saying electricity or batteries will replace hydrocarbons.  If you do, I will be laughing at you, not with you.

You are correct that most electricity is made via hydrocarbons, and that will probably remain the case for quite a while, but centralization of fossil fuel based energy production can potentially have massive environmental benefits.

Switching the coal plants to Nat gas is a good start.  

Improve waste gas management (underground storage, advanced stack filtration).

Even better is to partially oxidize petrochemicals for energy while retaining the carbon and associated high value petrochemicals. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378382094001219

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acscatal.6b01087

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_coupling_of_methane

Edited August 8, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Switching the coal plants to Nat gas is a good start.  

This would be a great start, and would significantly reduce NOX and that horrible particulate air pollition.  Remember that insane air pollution haze in China a few years ago, before the Olympics?  I suspect massive burning of coal to generate electricity was a big factor.

Burning natural gas is far, far cleaner and far, far better for the global environment.

Natural Gas is "renewable energy".  It is also a hydrocarbon.  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This would be a great start, and would significantly reduce NOX and that horrible particulate air pollition.  Remember that insane air pollution haze in China a few years ago, before the Olympics?  I suspect massive burning of coal to generate electricity was a big factor.

Burning natural gas is far, far cleaner and far, far better for the global environment.

Natural Gas is "renewable energy".  It is also a hydrocarbon.  

Glad you realize this!  Trump has called coal "clean and beautiful" - it's nice you don't believe everything the orange man says.

Natural gas is a good stepping stone to even better.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Glad you realize this!  Trump has called coal "clean and beautiful" - it's nice you don't believe everything the orange man says.

Natural gas is a good stepping stone to even better.

Heh heh, do you actually think that I am incapable of independent thought or critical thinking?

I strongly support Trump's overall agenda to reverse the erosion of the U.S. and to strengthen the U.S. as an independent country.  That includes bringing jobs back to the U.S.

Political reality is coal is a voter base, and Trump's praise of coal and coal jobs is, in my view, misplaced.  I do not agree.  But it is a political reality that Trump addresses.  Part of his bigger strategy of "energy independence" from Middle East oil.  In my view, U.S. "energy independence" is a pipe dream, but bringing back coal jobs seems to be part of Trump's bigger picture of disconnecting the U.S. from energy dependence on hostile and unstable Middle East dictatorships.

Heck, I would be very happy if Trump pulled U.S. troops out of the Middle East and let the ME dictators rip each other to shreds in religious, ethnic and tribal fighting like they have for centuries.  No reason for the U.S. to be involved in unwinnable Middle East religious and ethnic slaughters.  Let Darwin Awards take its own course.

Heck, go ahead, let Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. pull out its warships from the region.  That would sure as heck wake up the recalcitrant unelected globalists in Brussels.  And it would be one heck of an escalation in the Trump vs. Xi trade war, as China wants to import Iranian oil.  Middle East is a political morass that the U.S. needs to extract itself from.

Oil revenues prop up these horrible ME absolute dictatorships, which may be part of the reason Trump wants lower (Brent) oil prices and more coal jobs in the U.S.

Not sure, really.  I can only guess at Trump's larger objectives for coal.

Natural Gas is a far better alternative to coal, but domestic coal jobs are only a tiny bit part in the bigger global picture of Trump's attempts to strengthen, not weaken, the U.S.

Obama was the worst President ever in U.S. history.  A lot of Obama's attempt at destruction of U.S. still needs to be undone by Trump.

The insane shrieking against Trump and Trump supporters by the far left is getting increasingly violent and unhinged:

Hollywood Is Launching A "Satirical" Movie About "Elites" Hunting, Killing Trump Supporters

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 8/7/2019 at 6:54 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Replaced by what, exactly?

Dilithium crystals and fairy farts? 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

59 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Dilithium crystals and fairy farts? 

Rainbow Unicorn Farts has been my flippant standby answer for years.

Speaking of Dilithium Crystals  ...

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Rainbow Unicorn Farts has been my flippant standby answer for years.

Speaking of Dilithium Crystals  ...

Batman's "super power" was being super rich and having severe mental illness from his parents death.

Robin was his sub... dark stuff.

No doubt he bought the set and liked the gay actor. Haha

 

Jokes people chill

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Heh heh, do you actually think that I am incapable of independent thought or critical thinking?

I strongly support Trump's overall agenda to reverse the erosion of the U.S. and to strengthen the U.S. as an independent country.  That includes bringing jobs back to the U.S.

Political reality is coal is a voter base, and Trump's praise of coal and coal jobs is, in my view, misplaced.  I do not agree.  But it is a political reality that Trump addresses.  Part of his bigger strategy of "energy independence" from Middle East oil.  In my view, U.S. "energy independence" is a pipe dream, but bringing back coal jobs seems to be part of Trump's bigger picture of disconnecting the U.S. from energy dependence on hostile and unstable Middle East dictatorships.

Heck, I would be very happy if Trump pulled U.S. troops out of the Middle East and let the ME dictators rip each other to shreds in religious, ethnic and tribal fighting like they have for centuries.  No reason for the U.S. to be involved in unwinnable Middle East religious and ethnic slaughters.  Let Darwin Awards take its own course.

Heck, go ahead, let Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. pull out its warships from the region.  That would sure as heck wake up the recalcitrant unelected globalists in Brussels.  And it would be one heck of an escalation in the Trump vs. Xi trade war, as China wants to import Iranian oil.  Middle East is a political morass that the U.S. needs to extract itself from.

Oil revenues prop up these horrible ME absolute dictatorships, which may be part of the reason Trump wants lower (Brent) oil prices and more coal jobs in the U.S.

Not sure, really.  I can only guess at Trump's larger objectives for coal.

Natural Gas is a far better alternative to coal, but domestic coal jobs are only a tiny bit part in the bigger global picture of Trump's attempts to strengthen, not weaken, the U.S.

Obama was the worst President ever in U.S. history.  A lot of Obama's attempt at destruction of U.S. still needs to be undone by Trump.

The insane shrieking against Trump and Trump supporters by the far left is getting increasingly violent and unhinged:

Hollywood Is Launching A "Satirical" Movie About "Elites" Hunting, Killing Trump Supporters

I would upvote that if you didn't need to throw the Obama dig in there.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I would upvote that if you didn't need to throw the Obama dig in there.

Understood, no issue.  By the end of this year as the "Spygate" Obama + Clinton shenanigans unravel into the general public's awareness, you may understand why I deemed that dig at Obama necessary.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

... Political reality is coal is a voter base, and Trump's praise of coal and coal jobs is, in my view, misplaced.  I do not agree.  But it is a political reality that Trump addresses.  Part of his bigger strategy of "energy independence" from Middle East oil.  In my view, U.S. "energy independence" is a pipe dream, but bringing back coal jobs seems to be part of Trump's bigger picture of disconnecting the U.S. from energy dependence on hostile and unstable Middle East dictatorships.

Heck, I would be very happy if Trump pulled U.S. troops out of the Middle East and let the ME dictators rip each other to shreds in religious, ethnic and tribal fighting like they have for centuries.  No reason for the U.S. to be involved in unwinnable Middle East religious and ethnic slaughters.  Let Darwin Awards take its own course.

Heck, go ahead, let Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. pull out its warships from the region.  That would sure as heck wake up the recalcitrant unelected globalists in Brussels.  And it would be one heck of an escalation in the Trump vs. Xi trade war, as China wants to import Iranian oil.  Middle East is a political morass that the U.S. needs to extract itself from.

Oil revenues prop up these horrible ME absolute dictatorships, which may be part of the reason Trump wants lower (Brent) oil prices and more coal jobs in the U.S.

Not sure, really.  I can only guess at Trump's larger objectives for coal. ...

Hmmm, I may have accidentally stumbled onto something in the bit I bolded above.  I read this article just now:

 

Saudis Have Few Good Options in Oil Talks With OPEC+ Allies

While Saudi Arabia and its allies may be considering all possible means to end the slump in oil prices, the options available to them are scarce.

The world’s biggest crude exporters have already been laboring since the beginning of the year to shore up prices by cutting production. That Brent futures nonetheless sank on Wednesday to a seven-month low demonstrates the limits of their powers.

Unlike previous market routs, the immediate problem doesn’t seem to be one of excess supplies. Instead, a cooling global economy and a prolonged trade dispute between the U.S. and China are putting a brake on fuel demand. Even if the Saudis and others in the OPEC+ cartel decide to cut output further, they may struggle to revive prices.  ...

 

... The OPEC+ alliance, which spans the 14 OPEC nations and 10 non-members such as Russia, pledged at the start of this year to reduce daily output by 1.2 million barrels a day. Key nations will gather in Abu Dhabi on Sept. 12 to review the strategy.

“There aren’t many tools in the tool-box other than faster and deeper cuts,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group and a former oil official at the White House under President George W. Bush.

However, reaching a new agreement may be beyond their grasp.  ...

 

... OPEC’s room for maneuver may also be constrained by the U.S. oil industry.

The boom in American shale oil this decade has been the ultimate source of the glut that the cartel has been trying to combat for the past few years. Saudi Minister Al-Falih reiterated in July that the kingdom won’t pursue “endless” production cuts that perpetuate the surplus by encouraging more investment in shale.  ...