Debate focus on oil stirs campaigns
Biden pledge to ‘transition away’ puts climate at center of the final stretch
WASHINGTON >> Joe Biden’s pledge to “transition away from the oil industry” to address global warming put the topic of climate change on center stage for the final stretch of a campaign year in which the issue has played a larger role than ever.
Biden’s statement in the closing moments of Thursday’s debate gave President Donald Trump what his campaign saw as an enormous opportunity to blunt his opponent’s appeal to working- class voters. Biden’s campaign tried to downplay it, saying he was merely stating that he would phase out long-standing tax subsidies for the oil industry.
But transitioning away from fossil fuels is the inevitable endgame of Biden’s promise to end net carbon pollution by 2050. That policy has energized some young voters and helped unite the Democrats’ left and moderate wings, but has always carried risks for Biden.
“Last night, Joe Biden issued a crystal- clear threat to 19 million Americans with his promise to eliminate the oil industry. No amount of spin
or clean up from Biden or his team can rectify this error,” Steve Guest, a Republican National Committee spokesman, said Friday morning.
In no political year has climate change been as dominant an issue as 2020.
Both presidential debates delved into the matter in depth for the first time. Biden campaigned hard on promises to reduce planet-warming emissions, proposing a $2 trillion program to promote clean energy, construct 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations and build 1.5 million new energy- efficient homes.
Trump has worked sporadically to moderate his longtime climate denial by promoting tree-planting as an environmental solution, even as he has maintained his avid support for the coal and oil industries, rolled back every climate regulation implemented by his predecessor and moved to withdraw the United States from the international Paris Agreement on climate change.
But the closing moments of the debate reverted back to an older question: Can the nation transition to clean energy from fossil fuels without enormous economic and political disruption?
“Basically what he is saying is, he is going to destroy the oil industry,” Trump charged, adding, straight to the camera, “Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?”
The line was reminiscent of the Republican response in 2016 to Hillary Clinton’s acknowledgment that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” as the nation moves to clean energy. Those comments resonated in coal states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wyoming.
Biden’s comments may focus attention on a different set of battlegrounds, such as Texas and New Mexico. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, an endangered freshman Democrat in New Mexico, said on Twitter, “We need to work together to promote responsible energy production and stop climate change, not demonize a single industry.”
Rep. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, another freshman Democrat facing a tough reelection bid, declared, “Here’s one of the places Biden and I disagree. We must stand up for our oil and gas industry.”
Though more alluded to than stated outright, transitioning from fossil fuels will be necessary to meet Biden’s goals of eliminating emissions from the power sector by 2035 and reaching net- zero emissions across the economy by midcentury. That transition, scientists say, is required to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
Yet he has walked a fine line throughout the campaign, insisting that natural gas production — and the jobs it creates — will remain a core part of U. S. energy composition for several years to come even as he envisions a future powered more by wind, solar and other renewable sources.
Some energy experts said the Trump campaign’s attacks on Biden may not have the same resonance as those on Clinton four years ago, in large part because public understanding of climate change has grown and the major oil companies of the world have, to varying degrees, pledged to reduce their emissions.
“This is a playbook that they keep coming back to, and it’s less and less effective. The economy is moving on, and the public is moving on,” said Joshua Freed, who leads the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank.
Freed called the level of attention climate change received at the two presidential debate sand throughout the campaign “overdue” and said he believes the United States has turned a corner on its acceptance of the need to reduce greenhouse gases.
“When you have the worst wildfires in history on the West Coast, when you have flood after flood after record-breaking storm and hurricane across the rest of the country, you have people saying, ‘ This is a big problem, and we want to see it addressed,’ ” he said.
During the 12 minutes that NBC devoted to climate change Thursday, the moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, framed humancaused global warming as a fact. She asked candidates for their solutions rather than whether they “believe” the science.
Biden and Trump engaged in a sustained debate about the economic effects of both addressing and failing to address the problem. And for what many analysts said was the first time ever, the candidates were asked to talk about the consequences of pollution on communities of color who disproportionately live near industrial sites.
Trump has disparaged climate science and installed people who do not agree with mainstream science about climate change in prominent positions at both the White House and environmental agencies. He has sought to roll back every federal regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, moved to make it easier for aging coal plants to keep operating and promoted greater oil and gas production.
Biden called climate change an “existential threat to humanity.”