1. This is a good excuse to finally try to articulate what I think about the politics of fracking. (I got tired of people saying nice things about my geothermal article and want to resume getting yelled at.)
2. The obvious implication of the poll results described in the article, IMO, is that public opinion on fracking, as on most issues, is quite *shallow*. Most people are happy to take cues from elites. "Oh, we hate fracking? Fine. Oh, but we don't wanna ban it? Fine."
3. On the other hand, there are a few constituencies, in PA & other fracking states, that DO care passionately about fracking. Enviros are passionately against, but they're voting D regardless. Then there are frack workers & communities that have jobs/money on the line.
4. Those latter, passionately pro (or at least anti-banning) fracking folk are a minority, even within PA, but they are more likely to be from important swing constituencies, which matters in an election that will be whisker close. Their votes are needed more.
5. You might worry, "you're turning all these other people against fracking just to appeal to a small constituency!" But remember, for the vast majority of people, opinion on this is shallow & easily swayed. It can be swayed back. It's not a constraint on reg/leg action.
6. The substantive truth is A) Biden's not going to ban fracking, because, among other things, he *can't* -- the president has no such power; however B) a combo of Biden's regs on frack pollution, ban of frack on public land, & pro-clean energy policies *will kill fracking*.
7. They won't totally eliminate it -- the industry will try to pivot to exports & plastics -- but realistically, for an industry already on the ropes, it's gonna hasten the demise.
8. So, when he's talking to audiences that might contain intensely pro-fracking constituencies, Biden emphasizes A. To greens, he emphasizes B. This is known in the business as "trying to get elected," or more succinctly, politics.
9. My general take is that America's ongoing viability as a democracy is on the line & if Biden needed to strangle puppies on stage to get elected, I will hand him the rope. I do not undrstand how anyone could think otherwise. That said, it's just not the case ...
10. ... that the way he's spinning this will in any way constrain what he can or will do in office. Nor will shallow public opinion. What determines his actions in office will be circumstances, events, personnel, etc. No one will remember any of this campaign junk.
11. I guess to summarize, let the man say whatever the F he needs to say to get elected. Quit trying to force him to say things his team has determined will hurt his chances. None of it matters except the winning. If he wins, then the real fighting over fracking can start. </fin>
Oh, one other thought: I still don't feel like I have a full understanding of the dynamics whereby climate activists came to be so much more fixated on fracking than on coal, which is worse on every conceivable metric and still very much around.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This thread shows that it's historically been extremely difficult to pass anything big (federally) w/out bipartisan support. But of course Rs know this & have exploited this feature of the system & plan to continue exploiting it. So what are Dems supposed to do?
The "pull together in unity and simply steamroll the other party" strategy is incredibly difficult & prone to failure, but the GOP has made clear that the bipartisan route is absolutely, 100% closed off. So what else are Ds supposed to do? They can't just do nothing.
Holding onto unity will be difficult, for all the usual Dem-infighting reasons, & also because Rs & VSP pundits will be relentlessly scolding them for being partisan, for not reaching out enough, for not being "open to compromise." Dems either ignore that scolding or they are Fd.
If you had a chance to talk to some smart experts about CDR (carbon dioxide removal), what would you ask? What are you curious/worried/excited about in that space? Political dynamics? Tech developments? Hit me.
Hm, it appears I'm going to need a 47-hour interview.
One strong message from this call: trees, *as a means of carbon sequestration*, are bullshit. Plenty of great reasons to plant trees, to love trees, to hug trees, but carbon sequestration isn't one of them.
So, last night I watched Fargo (the original movie, not the show) with the kids. It's been over 20 years since I last saw it and DAMN did it hit me different/harder this time. It is profound about humanity, about good & evil, in ways I didn't really appreciate before.
I think when I first saw it, I took the "bad guy" to be the anomaly in need of explanation -- a red streak of pure evil against the bland white background of upper midwest Normal. I thought that contrast was the center of the movie. This time around, though ...
... a different contrast struck me, namely the simple kindness & decency of Marge & Norm against the backdrop of a Normal mostly populated by people like Jerry Lundegaard -- not evil, really, just petty & shortsighted, an unwitting enabler of evil.
I honestly think most Republicans don't have any problem with Russia helping Trump get elected. Not sure if any of them have come out & said so plainly, but there's no other way to explain the party's reaction to confirmation that Russia is spreading disinformation through them.
After all, "telling lies to help Trump get elected" is what everyone in the party has devoted themselves to for going on five years now. Why would they turn down help? Why would it bother them?
I know I keep saying this, but: the whole point of spending decades painting Democrats not as political opponents but as killers & monsters determined to destroy the country ... is to soften the audience up so they will accept crimes & atrocities on behalf of "their side."
In the name of copping to mistakes, I will say, I assumed at the beginning of this race that the right would be able to do to ANY candidate what it did to Hillary. But it has really failed to touch Biden. I don't fully get it. washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
So is the explanation:
A) Hillary had unique vulnerabilities.
B) It was misogyny -- they woulda slimed Warren too.
C) Biden has unique strengths.
D) The RW slime machine is losing its touch.
Or some mix?
Obviously one can't run such experiments, but it would sure be interesting to re-run the campaign w/ Warren (to see whether they could Hillary her or whether the 20yr headstart on Hillary was crucial) or a different old white man (to see how much teflon is unique to Biden).
"Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II." nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Trump is a classic leader of a reactionary movement. He was elected to stomp in & piss all over the elites, their institutions, their norms, their precious procedures & habits. Yes, GOP elites want the judges & the tax cuts, but the base wants the cruelty & crudeness.
The problem is that reactionary movements are purely destructive. Once they piss all over everything, they have nothing to do but ... find other things to piss on, other enemies. There's nothing TO them but organized resentment. There's no generative project.