The US Presidency 2020

[brihard]

March 3rd will be more of an indication.

Being accused of misogyny doesn’t seem to be a disqualifier in US politics these days...

For a Republican candidate this would likely have minimal impact on electability. Running for the Democrats... that could leave a mark.

How much better would it have been had the moderator deeply announced “FINISH HIM!”?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Running for the Democrats... that could leave a mark.

Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in the misogynistic efforts to smear Bill's accusers, and that isn't something that anyone keeps raising as an excuse for her failure to win.  Nor has Sanders's past behaviour in this regard harmed him notably.  There may be marks, but they're hard to see.  All muck-raking depends much more on cui bono than mere party alignment.

 

[QV]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trumps-america-leads-the-world-in-cutting-greenhouse-gases

Trump's America leads the world in cutting greenhouse gases and their economy is great. Well done America and well done Trump.

Canada is doing very poorly on both accounts.

 

 

[Remius]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trumps-america-leads-the-world-in-cutting-greenhouse-gases

Trump's America leads the world in cutting greenhouse gases and their economy is great. Well done America and well done Trump.

Canada is doing very poorly on both accounts.

Here is a counterpoint.  It argues the real reason emissions are down is because the economy isn't growing very fast.  You'll also note the article makes no partisan attacks.  Just some facts. And the drop in emissions is not as dramatic as the Sun is trying to portray.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fell-slightly-in-2019/2020/01/06/568f0a82-309e-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

"One factor that lowered the emissions level was the slowdown in the economy overall. Growth slowed to 2.3 percent in the first three quarters of 2019, down from a 2.9 percent pace in 2018."

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is it that emissions are falling, or the rate of emissions growth is falling?

It's not intuitively obvious that slower economic growth should cause emissions to fall absolutely, but I can see how it would slow a rate of growth.

What is the claimed causation, or is it just an observation that these two things are happening at roughly the same time?

 

[QV]

Here is a counterpoint.  It argues the real reason emissions are down is because the economy isn't growing very fast.  You'll also note the article makes no partisan attacks.  Just some facts. And the drop in emissions is not as dramatic as the Sun is trying to portray.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fell-slightly-in-2019/2020/01/06/568f0a82-309e-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

"One factor that lowered the emissions level was the slowdown in the economy overall. Growth slowed to 2.3 percent in the first three quarters of 2019, down from a 2.9 percent pace in 2018."

Well, I guess it comes down to who you believe. From the Toronto Sun article: 

"In a report this month from the authoritative, Paris-based, International Energy Agency:“The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions in 2019 on a country basis — a fall of 140 Mt (megatonnes) or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt (gigatonnes). US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”

This dramatic drop in US emissions was a significant factor in flattening global emissions at 33 Gt in 2019 after two years of increases, and despite the global economy growing by 2.9%, including increased emissions in China and India.

“We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director. “We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all.”

US emissions have dropped by about 15% below 2005 levels, 2% short of its 2020 target of 17% below 2005 emissions.

Trudeau’s target for 2020 was also to lower our emissions by 17% below 2005 levels, but as of 2017, the last year for which Canadian statistics are available, emissions have dropped only 1.9%. In 2017, emissions rose by 1.1% compared to 2016."

 

[Blackadder1916]

Well, I guess it comes down to who you believe. From the Toronto Sun article: 

. . .

Also from the same Toronto Sun article:

What lowers emissions is technological innovation and market forces.

As the IEA noted in explaining the drop in U.S. emissions last year: “A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share of electricity generation to a record high of 37%.”

Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, burning at half the carbon intensity of coal. Hydraulic fracturing in the US has freed up enormous reserves of natural gas that were previously inaccessible. Excess supply lowered its market price, making it financially advantageous to replace coal with natural gas to produce electricity.

Coal-fired electricity is the single largest source of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing it with natural gas is the single most effective thing we can do to lower industrial greenhouse gas emissions globally.

Canada, by the way, is a global leader in replacing coal-fired electricity with non-emitting energy sources such as nuclear and hydro power and low-emitting natural gas. We get just 9% of our electricity from coal, compared to 59% in China, 72% in India, 40% in Germany, and 27.5% in the US (as of 2018).

. . .

I don't follow Goldstein (the opinion columnist who wrote the Sun piece) so I don't have a sense of what biases (political or otherwise) he has, but if he didn't bury the lead (in my opinion what I quoted), at least he made sure that he got his shot in at the PM first on the way to providing an explanation almost as an afterthought.  He doesn't identify the IEA report that he used as reference so I'm assuming it is CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion 2019 Highlights.  After a quick glance through it, some of the figures he quotes appear to come from it.

However, since we are posting this in the US Presidency thread, perhaps the question should be raised whether any actions on the part of the current incumbent of the oval office had any significant effect in the the reduced 2019 emissions.  While there has been rollback in environmental regulatory efforts by the Trump administration with regards to hydraulic fracking (a major source of increased US natural gas production) can anybody provide examples of closures/conversions of coal fired electrical generating plants with replacement of that generating capacity by natural gas fired plants that have been planned, funded, constructed and brought on-line all within a timeline since January 2017.  That's a rhetorical question, there might be some but I expect it to be very, very unlikely due to this snippet from a Sept 2019 USA Today article which is mostly about Sierra Club criticism of increased natural gas power plant construction in lieu of renewable alternatives.

. . .  Power companies are required to estimate future needs and plan as much as 15 years out, and this list includes plants which the companies may eventually decide they don’t need.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

i am stocking up on popcorn for the Bernie vs Trump election, this should be a lot of fun.

 

[QV]

The bottom line is that America, under Trump, is doing very well.  Far better than anyone expected.  Too bad Canada is not doing as well.

 

[mariomike]

I don't follow Goldstein (the opinion columnist who wrote the Sun piece) so I don't have a sense of what biases (political or otherwise) he has, but if he didn't bury the lead (in my opinion what I quoted), at least he made sure that he got his shot in at the PM first on the way to providing an explanation almost as an afterthought. 

In review, the Toronto Sun reports news with emotionally loaded words and right leaning bias such as “Trudeau blunders will sink one-term wonder boy” and “Trudeau wages phony climate war against Ford.”

Overall, we rate the Toronto Sun, Right Biased based to story selection and editorial positions that favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of sourcing and scientific positions that do not align with the consensus of science.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-sun/

 

[Remius]

The bottom line is that America, under Trump, is doing very well.  Far better than anyone expected.  Too bad Canada is not doing as well.

Yup. I would say they are doing well, not "very well" though.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669

"U.S. GDP growth will slow to 2.0% in 2020 from 2.2% in 2019. It will be 1.9% in 2021 and 1.8% in 2022."

Not sure Trump gets credit though.

As far as Canada

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/economics/canadian/can-otlk?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

"Real GDP is forecast to expand by 1.8 per cent in 2020 and 1.9 per cent in 2021. This is up slightly from 2019’s 1.7 per cent gain

Not sure Trudeau gets credit either.

While we are slowly growing the US is slowly contracting.  Not a bad thing but our growth is similar. 

But comparing US and Canada's economies is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[mariomike]

Not sure Trump gets credit though.

Trump Gets Most Votes As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Obama Top Trump 4-1 As Best President

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2526

"In 73 years, 13 men have governed from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and none of them have done so with less admiration from the American people."

 

[Brad Sallows]

>can anybody provide examples of closures/conversions of coal fired electrical generating plants with replacement of that generating capacity by natural gas fired plants that have been planned, funded, constructed and brought on-line all within a timeline since January 2017

Not likely.  This has pretty much all happened without presidential intervention, either for or against (current and past administrations).

Probably repeating myself: if there really were a climate emergency, governments would be removing all obstacles to increasing exports of natural gas to Asia.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This has pretty much all happened without presidential intervention, either for or against (current and past administrations).

If I was to give any credit for this particular happenstance to a previous administration it would probably be to Bush 43.  It was during his administration that natural gas production saw its probably greatest resurgence thanks in part to some regulatory changes (such as exempting fracking from restrictions imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act) and by providing a very friendly environment to the oil and gas industry (probably something to do with coming from that industry himself as well as the Vice President).  Oh, and there was the start of that war that provided incentive to seek energy self-sufficiency.

 

[FJAG]

If I was to give any credit for this particular happenstance to a previous administration it would probably be to Bush 43.  It was during his administration that natural gas production saw its probably greatest resurgence thanks in part to some regulatory changes (such as exempting fracking from restrictions imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act) and by providing a very friendly environment to the oil and gas industry (probably something to do with coming from that industry himself as well as the Vice President).  Oh, and there was the start of that war that provided incentive to seek energy self-sufficiency.

What a shock: a Bush being oil and gas friendly.

:sarcasm:

 

[Cloud Cover]

I believe this picture is 4yrs old but so much more relevant today:

 

[ModlrMike]

Yes, the Democrats seem hell bent on ensuring Trump will win again.  :facepalm:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not sure whether they're running a campaign primary, or a research project to answer the questions "What's the worst possible candidate we could run, and what would be the path to the nomination?"

 

[mariomike]

Not sure whether they're running a campaign primary, or a research project to answer the questions "What's the worst possible candidate we could run, and what would be the path to the nomination?"

A 79-year old socialist, just had a heart attack?

 

[OceanBonfire]

Trump, Pence try to manage coronavirus response amid new fears it could spread

A day after President Donald Trump declared Vice President Mike Pence the point person on the U.S. government's response to the coronavirus, the administration on Thursday continued to try to stem confusion over its handling of the outbreak.

Pence planned to lead an interagency task force meeting at the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday afternoon. The president formed the task force late last month and made Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar its chairman.

Azar said at a White House news conference Wednesday he would remain in that role, even though Trump said at that same press conference that he wanted Azar to "focus on" his regular duties.

The secretary did not learn of the decision to make Pence the lead until just before Trump announced it publicly, three sources told ABC News.

On Thursday morning, Azar said at a hearing on Capitol Hill that he had been consulted about Pence's role before it was announced, although he did not say when. When he heard about it, he testified, "I said, quote, 'That’s genius.'"

The vice president said Wednesday that he would "continue to bring that team together, to bring to the president the best options for action" and would reach out to state and local officials.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she spoke to Pence Thursday morning and "expressed to him the concern that I had of his being in this position."

As Indiana's governor in 2015, Pence was criticized for his response to the state's worst outbreak of HIV in its history and the nation's first HIV outbreak linked to the injection of oral painkillers. He took two months to declare a state of emergency and opposed a clean-needle exchange over the advocacy of health officials.

Studies in medical journals have said the epidemic could have been prevented if the state had acted faster.

"This is about resources; it's also about personnel," Pelosi said. "It's also about respect for science, for evidence-based decision making, and it's about having so much of that talent that we are so proud of in our public health sector be available in other countries so that we can get a true … and accurate assessment of what is happening in other countries.”

Overall, Pelosi said, “Up until now the Trump administration has mounted an opaque and chaotic response to this outbreak."

At the Wednesday press conference, Trump made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room, taking questions for the first time and trying to portray a sense of calm amid rising fears over the virus, called COVID-19.

But some of his comments did not clear up some of the public's confusion.

While health officials standing alongside him said cases would increase, Trump at times questioned whether that was true and downplayed the threat.

A day earlier, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official had warned Americans of "significant disruption" coming because of the virus, hours after the president said the situation was "under control" and that it was a "problem that's going to go away."

On Wednesday evening, Trump told reporters that "there's a chance that it won't spread." In the same press conference, he noted that in California a 15th case of the virus had been confirmed.

But he did not mention what the CDC announced soon after the news conference concluded: that the patient had no known exposure to the virus through travel or close contact with a known infected individual, making it possibly the first case of "community spread" on American soil.

The case raises questions about whether broader testing should be allowed. It appeared to indicate the virus had been circulating among the local community and infecting people, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected, according to the CDC.

Azar had earlier referenced the case at a Wednesday afternoon congressional hearing -- saying its epidemiology was still being discerned -- but he did not provide any details or explain its potential implications.

The federal government has so far resisted wider testing, and Pence's office on Thursday morning did not respond to a question about whether that position had changed considering the California case.

At his Wednesday news conference, Trump even spread misinformation about the virus, incorrectly saying the mortality rate of influenza was higher than that of coronavirus.

While the mortality rate of the coronavirus is not fully understood, this week the World Health Organization posted preliminary findings from within China, pegging the fatality rate of 2 to 4% in the hard-hit city of Wuhan and 0.7% elsewhere in the country. By comparison, the flu's mortality rate is about 0.1%.

Trump's attempt to reassure also did not quell economic jitters, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping sharply Thursday for a fourth day in a row.

In a sign the White House had its eye on the economy, the administration on Thursday afternoon that two key economic officials, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, would join the president's coronavirus task force.

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams would also join the group, the announcement from Pence and Azar said.

White House Deputy press secretary Judd Deere told ABC News Thursday that Trump was "receiving regular updates on the coronavirus through meetings and phone calls today," although he did not provide more details, and the president's public schedule did not mention anything related to the virus.

The Vice President's office announced Thursday that Pence has appointed a physician to serve in his office as the "White House coronavirus response coordinator." Ambassador Debbie Birx, who has led the U.S. government's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS since 2014, will report to Pence in the new position.

"She has deep experience in coordinating across agencies," Pence's office said in announcing Birx's new role. "She has worked from the research bench to the clinic, but understands the primary focus must always be to reach the individuals most in need. She will bring her infectious disease, immunologic, vaccine research and inter-agency coordinating capacity to this position."

Pence's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether the vice president planned any other meetings or engagement on Thursday with respect to coronavirus, aside from chairing the afternoon task force meeting.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pence-manage-coronavirus-response-amid-fears-spread/story?id=69255477