Backpedaling on energy is politically inevitable – even Biden will embrace hydrocarbons if in power, there is no other choice

A politician on the campaign trail is not really a human. A free-wheeling brain is a recipe for disaster, when every second is documented and critiqued. If humanity isn’t dialed out, the politician might go rogue and offend someone, and hooo boy are there a lot of sensitive people out there these days. There is no room for a slip up; some mustard on the nose or a bad joke and the campaign will be over in one tweet storm. Years of image building can be undone in seconds as though exposing one’s self on the subway. No one is watching for random acts of brilliance, they’re looking fo reasons to execute campaigns. (Donald Trump does break these rules, but he’s not a politician. He’s…Trump. The same guy that wrote The Art of the Deal. His blueprint has been public for decades, and he lives it, and no one should be surprised.)

As a result of this mandatory plasticity, campaign promises are about as solid as a house build of chicken bones. The only thing interesting about them is how they often morph from fiery to feeble to non-existent, if/when power is achieved.

Take Joe Biden’s energy plank. When he was fighting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, Sanders backed him into a corner during a debate about fracking. Sanders said he would ban all fracking, and Biden said, “Me too.” Sanders then said that essentially he didn’t believe Biden, challenging Biden to “correct me if I’m wrong.” Biden replied, “No more – no new fracking.” Biden also embraced the core principles of the Green New Deal, which, as you may imagine, feels about fracking as tornadoes feel about trailer parks.

In subsequent dialogue, Biden moved the goal posts, saying that he would only ban fracking on federal lands. This was understandable; Biden’s campaign was “trying to reconcile a combination of demands that no political candidate for president to date has been able to successfully navigate,” said one policy analyst in respect of Biden’s tap dancing.

Just wait though, it’s going to get a lot more interesting should Biden actually get into power. We’ve seen this play in Canada a few times.

In Alberta, Rachel Notley guided the NDP to power in Alberta, no easy task, particularly as she’d been notably anti-oil previously, for example taking part in a Greenpeace/Sierra Club protest bearing signs such as “No Tarsands No Tankers No Pipelines No Problem”. Once in power, she quickly learned to love oil and pipelines, and even engineered the province’s purchase of rail cars to help get bitumen to market in a severely transportation-constrained period.

Further up the political food chain, Prime Minister Trudeau’s brain, Gerald Butts, a former WWF executive and mega-climate hawk, engineered a green revolution in Ontario that hammered the province economically with much higher power prices (and marginal gains in emissions), and led to the ouster of the Liberal government (voters were so fed up they rushed to embrace one of the Ford brothers, the other of which had been filmed smoking crack (and Doug has turned out to be a good leader)). Butts escaped the carnage like a rat leaving a burning building, and brought his talents to Ottawa. He guided Trudeau to power, and masterminded Trudeau’s gargantuan green plans. Yet, through all this, Trudeau wound up not just buying the Trans Mountain pipeline, but is now the “boss” of its expansion. And yes, that expansion is largely to move the detested oil sands bitumen to foreign markets. Such is life in the big chair, when empty promises become bill paying realities.

It happens elsewhere too. Germany has spent some real money, over half a trillion dollars, on renewable energy over the past 20 years, and they just opened a new coal fired power plant.

Even further up the food chain, China is softly back pedaling too. A few years ago, global headlines blared that China was looking to ban internal combustion vehicles. This week, the tune had changed: “The country shouldn’t set a firm timetable for phasing out fossil-fuel vehicles… Some countries have a policy banning fuel cars and we are against such moves,” said a panel advising the government. And so it goes, when reality interferes with daydreaming.

All the chirping on the campaign trail means nothing once in the drivers’ seat. Biden can say all he wants about banning fracking on federal lands. In 2017, US federal lands (onshore and offshore) accounted for 13 percent of US natural gas production and 24 percent of US crude oil production. Now, imagine letting that production evaporate at the same time that US shale production is shrinking and facing a bleak future.

Biden will be no different than Notley or Trudeau if he gets the big chair; he’ll turn his back on the ultra-activists he had to placate on the election trail because, well, he won’t have any choice. Should he get into power, the US will by then have a debt problem of monumental proportions, will be facing unprecedented bankruptcies as coronavirus chickens come home to roost, and he’ll have a thousand problems to deal with without creating a huge new one. He’ll tune out the Green New Deal advocates just as if he was tuning out Republicans. Then hopefully attention will turn to worrying about the environment, and not the politics of climate change. The two, once related, are now, at a minimum, feudin’ cousins.

Forget the mainstream parade of energy ignorance and disinformation. Pick up “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” available at, or

Please consider supporting this website

Mainstream energy dialogue is terrible; energy ignorance is rampant yet dominates the news. Independent blogs, by people who know the business, are more critical than ever. Thanks for the support!


Screen Shot 2019-02-07 at 7.59.59 PM


  1. John Chittick says:

    The reality is that the alternative to fossil fuels being a long term bridge to (very likely) more nuclear power is not wind and solar but wind and solar, widespread poverty and environmental degradation.


    • Terry Etam says:

      Yep, if clean air is the goal nuclear has to be a big part. I think a true bridge from fossil fuels to anything has to be driven by market forces. If we have $120 oil for 5 years, change will happen. If the insistence is to make the fight political, we’re going nowhere except civil war (US) and weird disintegration (Canada).


      • Rand West says:

        I think $10 per GJ gas would change the economics of electricity generation more than $120 oil price would. A high oil and condensate price with ample supply and laws against flaring would depress dry natural gas prices.

        In other words, $10 gas (was it 2007?) would mean pricey electricity on top of $1000 higher winter heating bill, so there won’t be any getting around it.


      • Terry Etam says:

        Agree about a higher price of gas changing electric profile more, i was referring to general consumer behaviour like vehicle choices. I wonder what $10 gas would do to shale production…although if it was $10 because of a carbon tax that would be a different story


      • Rand West says:

        I’m not opposed to high carbon taxes if they’re accompanied by personal income tax adjustments and not watered down with exemptions. And the carbon taxes should be tacked on to exports, too, unless the coal is going to be burned on another planet.

        I saw an announcement from MP Regan that Canada can’t make the carbon emission targets without nuclear power. While I think there’s more that could be done with new hydro dams and east-westtransmission, better home insulation and geothermal heat exchange, obviously if Alberta and Saskatchwan had started building 6 GW of CANDU plants each in 2000, we’d be pretty well there today.

        I’m also not opposed to higher energy prices all the way back to the wellhead – perhaps a set of import duties / export subsidies on the stuff could be set up as a sort of opposite to the old National Emergy Program. Instead of keeping Canada’s internal price at 1/2 the world price, let’s jack it up to double, and see if that helps with the orphan well problem.


    • Rand West says:

      There’s 5 KW coming from our solar panels, nothing unusual coming out the downspouts, although all the weeds there are dead.

      I can demonstrate that it’s clearly possible to run *some* things on solar power. But I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that it’s now practical to run *everything* in Alberta on variable, renewable energy farms. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

      Maybe 10 nuclear power plants in Alberta and Sask could provide all that ‘clean’ electricity we would need, for winter heating. Wind power + solar – gas = mostly no power in December. And forget about storing power in batteries, that idea is for the hard of thinking.


  2. R. Clark says:

    Your article assumes that Biden will be acting as president if he wins. He is suffering from degradation of basic mental capacity. Several of his team have mentioned clearly that they intend to push him to a further progressive agenda. They do not understand where the country sits with respect to the economy and fossil fuel sources of energy that remain a cornerstone. They will press ahead because they do not understand how energy is made. They only understand that it comes from an outlet on the wall. Look at California and you can see where the current green strategy leads. The Dems can’t be trusted with anything. . . oh and you can keep your Doctor too.


    • Terry Etam says:

      Agree about California – they thought they could “get away with it” simply by importing power from elsewhere. I don’t think anyone will be that stupid on the national level (though I certainly could be wrong).


      • John Chittick says:

        When Obama was lying his way through the imposition of Obama-care on the US, one of his famous lies was: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” (supposedly after Obama-care was implemented).


      • Rand West says:

        California has power generation and transmission issues that go deeper than trade with neighboring states. It’s almost as if they’re still haunted by the ghost of Enron, and obviously solar photovoltaic can’t run *everything*, but it’s not doing *nothing*.


  1. […] …he’ll turn his back on the ultra-activists he had to placate on the election trail because, well, he won’t have any choice. Should he get into power, the US will by then have a debt problem of monumental proportions, will be facing unprecedented bankruptcies as coronavirus chickens come home to roost, and he’ll have a thousand problems to deal with without creating a huge new one. Read on… […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: