Will the NY Times notice that it is simply an election ploy? In other words, a complete lie?
A Shift Among Democrats: Embrace Record Levels of Oil and Gas
…
But Mr. Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate who said “climate change is real” and spoke of the ravages of extreme weather, nevertheless shied away from any suggestion that the United States, the world’s biggest historic emitter of carbon dioxide, should stop burning oil, gas and coal.
And he boasted that oil and gas production has reached record levels under the Biden administration, in addition to gains in solar, wind and other nonpolluting energy sources. “We are producing more natural gas and oil than any time we ever had,” Mr. Walz said. “We’re also producing more clean energy.”
Mr. Walz’s comments echoed a similar line that Vice President Kamala Harris used during her debate with Mr. Trump last month. “We have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels,” Ms. Harris said.
What’s this “we” when it comes to fossil fuels? That’s almost all private. Without the trillions of taxpayer dollars poured into solar and wind few would actually build these projects.
It’s a subtle shift in messaging among Democrats. Just a few months ago, the White House was seeking to avoid the fact that President Biden, who has called for a transition away from fossil fuels, has in fact overseen the biggest oil and gas boom in United States history. (snip)
“Democrats have made the political judgment that they don’t get more votes by talking about reducing fossil fuel production,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. He said the decline of coal, oil and gas is implicit in the rhetoric from Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz, because the expansion in wind and solar power they seek would reduce demand for fossil fuels.
But, Mr. Gerrard said, Democrats feel no pressure from the environmental movement or young climate-minded voters to make that case explicitly.“Democrats have made the political judgment that they don’t get more votes by talking about reducing fossil fuel production,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. He said the decline of coal, oil and gas is implicit in the rhetoric from Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz, because the expansion in wind and solar power they seek would reduce demand for fossil fuels.
But, Mr. Gerrard said, Democrats feel no pressure from the environmental movement or young climate-minded voters to make that case explicitly.
“They believe they already have the environmental vote locked up and the people they’re worried about are the swing voters, many of whom are in Pennsylvania, which is a fracking state,” he said.
That’s as close as the Times will get to noting that Harris-Walz are lying for votes.
Read: Surprise: Democrats Suddenly Big Supporters Of Fossil Fuels »