Joe Manchin Explains Why He Torpedoed Democrats’ Green New Deal

From The Daily Caller

Chris White | Energy Reporter

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said Tuesday that he voted against the Green New Deal because the ambitious climate proposal was not a realistic idea and failed to account for the role fossil fuels might play in tackling global warming.

“I think we need to focus on real solutions that recognize the role fossil fuels will continue to play,” he said in a statement following the vote. “This climate problem is a massive one and we must act, but aspirational documents will not solve this crisis — real solutions focused on innovation will” He provided the statement to Politico reporter Anthony Adragna.

“Whether it be successfully commercializing emissions-reducing technologies in the power, manufacturing, or transportation sectors, the U.S. must lead the world in innovation,” Manchin said, adding that “we must do so in a way that creates meaningful opportunity for those communities here in the U.S. that have already been left behind.”

Manchin was one of only three Democrats who voted against the resolution, which seeks to phase out all fossil fuels within a dozen years. Democratic Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Democratic Alabama Sen. Doug Jones also voted no. The rest of their fellow Democratic colleagues voted present. Republicans defeated the proposal 57 to 0.(RELATED: McConnell And Senate Republicans Vote To Kill Green New Deal)

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed "Green New Deal" to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The resolution, which was introduced in February by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calls for “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals aimed at fighting global warming. A separate fact sheet claims the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.”

Manchin generally supports President Donald Trump’s energy agenda and has voted with the administration on key appointments to slots overseeing parts of U.S. energy policy, such as former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who resigned in January. Manchin hails from a pro-coal state. The West Virginia senator’s support for fossils frequently roils environmentalists.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Joe Manchin Explains Why He Torpedoed Democrats’ Green New Deal

  1. What a terrible thing, McConnell did. He put the GND resolution up to a vote. Being asked to vote for their own resolution was a dirty trick for 43 Democrats.

    • I know, how dare he put their bill up for a vote and expecting them to take a stand for the record. the fiend.

      • It was actually a brilliant tactic given the coming election year and that it places 43 Dems “On the Record” as NOT voting in favor of it.
        Push that Wave…Ride that Wave

        • It was actually a brilliant tactic given the coming election year …

          Indeed. I thought it was a brilliant play on Mitch’s part when he said he was going to bring it to the floor for a vote. It was a no-win for the Dems, as no matter how they voted it would be bad for them.
          Option 1) Vote no, and be killed in the primary for voting against the “planet saving” bill by their left wing base
          Option 2) Vote yes, and be killed in the general for voting for an “economy destroying” bill by the moderate and conservative voters
          Option 3) vote present. Some of the left wing base will be against you for not voting YES and some of the moderates and conservatives will be against you for not voting NO. Probably the least bad option, as they can hope to hold on to enough of their left-wing base to squeak through the primaries and enough of the moderate and conservative voters to have a shot in the general.

  2. …next election will be interesting to say the least
    people that can vote…are only 17 right now

    ..and brain washed

    • But some of those who voted in 2016 for their first time are now in the real world of work, or trying to enter that world, perhaps keeping a house or apartment for the first time , encountering bills for energy and food, filling in tax forms and maybe even experiencing parenthood. Real problems , real decisions to be made, not fantasies to be argued over in the student bar.

    • I heard that the Democrats want to reduce the voting age to 8 years old. AOC will wear her cheerleading uniform when the proposal presented on the House floor.

    • “This climate problem is a massive one and we must act…” Manchin, a conservative Democrat, proclaims

      Herein lies the real problem, the propaganda on this issue is so entrenched that if there is even one politician who doesn’t believe a problem exists he/she is not willing to stand tall and admit it.

      The Washington swamp sees this as an opportunity to accumulate more power unto itself. The United States Government, through the UN, set up the IPCC to manufacture this hobgoblin. The hard left is making their intent to use this boogieman to gradually amass more power over the great unwashed too obious. Republicans want to control our lives just as much as the Dems David. they just want to ease us more gradually into their frying pan so the we won’t hop out.

      • Hey now, go easy on the guy. He is after all a Democrat Senator. He knowsaid that even in Virginia if he comes out against the Climate Crises he’ll be branded a ‘science denying shill for big Oil’* and forced out of office by his party. He has to at least give lip service to the Greens.

        *No, not big Coal, despite that actually making more sense in Virginia. The Climate Faithful have been conditioned to respond with Big Oil regardless of whether it makes sense. “The more stitches, the less riches.”

        ~¿~

      • A valid observation but that’s OK. You can concede, for the sake of argument, that there is a problem and then conclusively demonstrate that said problem has no solution with current technology. You can further demonstrate that the proposed solutions will actually make things worse by driving up energy prices without reducing CO2 emissions.

        That is an easier argument to make than trying to persuade people that the “consensus” may be wrong. The average person knows nothing about forcing, feedback loops or natural variation but they know a lot about paying electricity bills.

  3. AOC pushed for Dems to vote ‘present’ on her own proposal because there were no hearings held before the vote. She is only interested in putting on a show where she can put her Alinsky ridicule tactics to work

      • It was introduced to the house the same time it was introduced in the Senate. As it’s never been voted on in the House, there’s no need to “reintroduce it” to the house. Regardless of when/how the House votes, the Senate has already rejected it, so Mitch has no need to ever bring it back to the floor for another vote. The only reason to do so would be to rub the Dem’s faces in it again.

        • It is dead until the next Congress begins in 2021. Then any bill can be introduced, including those defeated in previous Congresses.

  4. What about, “All those who voted in favor of this train wreck have beclowned themselves, proving they are not capable of making decisions on rational public policy.”

    • Steve O, that is much too direct. You are going to invade the safe space of the snowflakes, and they will have a bad day.

    • No one voted for it. Zero “Yes” votes.
      The Left wants the power which the GND would give them, without you finding out about it.

    • Indeed. It’s the same reason he’s bucked his party on some other major votes (such as the Kavanaugh confirmation). He’s very much aware that voting the wrong way (IE with his party) on certain issues would be a political death sentence for a Senator from West Virginia.

    • If W Virginians were smart they’d get rid of him. I cannot fathom why they re-elected him after going so strong for Trump. Maybe it was voter fraud. I remember days before the election reading an article expressing concern over WV voting machines being able to be hacked remotely. I blew it off, but started scratching my head after he got re-elected.

      • He’s an incumbent. They’re not easy to unseat. Just look at how Teddy Kennedy kept getting re-elected even after what happened in Chappaquiddick.

      • Old beliefs and loyalties cannot be changed overnight.

        The Democrats maintained control of the WV Legislature for 70 years and it was Obama’s War on Coal that put barely enough Republicans in the Legislature to take control, ….. but I think most of those Repubs are really Rinos because things are still “business-as-usual” in and around the Statehouse.

        West Virginia voted Republican in the General Election for the 1st time in 2014, against Obama, …. and again in 2016, for Trump. Joe Manchin survived both Primaries and both Generals because he supported/backed the coal miners.

        • If the Democrats continue their leftward march, I would not be surprised if Manchin changes parties.

          • Wouldn’t surprise me if Joe switched, Jim Justice has already set a precedence for “switchng”. To wit:

            In 2015, Jim Justice switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and announced his candidacy for governor in the 2016 election. He ran as a Democrat and defeated the Republican nominee, Bill Cole. Less than seven months after taking office, Justice switched back to the Republican Party the day after announcing his plans at a President Trump rally in the state.

            West Virginia voter are beginning to wise up after 70 years and beginning to understand exactly what the Democrat leadership actually means when they proclaim …… “Democrats are for the poor”.

            And it doesn’t mean that the …. “Democrats are for HELPING the poor to improve their lot in life”, …. but on the contrary, … it actually means that the …. “Democrats are intent on KEEPING the people poor to ensure they will keep voting for Democrats”,

          • beginning to understand exactly what the Democrat leadership actually means when they proclaim …… “Democrats are for the poor”.

            It also means the Democrats are for making everyone (except themselves) equally poor.

  5. Politicians talk as if there is some magically carbon free technology just waiting to be discovered. He says we just need to inovate. Aside from any day now for 60 years nuclear fusion I know of no other. The truly viable non carbon energy source is nuclear fission. Wind and solar must be backed up with fossil fuels so they are not carbon free.

    • Aug 28, 2012:
      WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.

      In Washington you command it and it happens as if by magic…

      They sign a piece of paper and the dismayed engineers at auto makers are legally bound to figure out how the heck to do it. And in the end, if it actually happens, the politicians take all the credit.

      • One of the ways they comply is to reduce car weight, like not including a spare tire. Pretty sick.

        • One of the ways they comply is to reduce car weight, like not including a spare tire. Pretty sick.

          That trick pre-dates Obama. When I bought a FORD in Jan of 2008 (1 year before he took office) it didn’t have a spare (not even one of those little donut spares) just a can of fix-a-flat.

    • Certain parts of the country have done pretty well on hydro power – think Bonneville power authority.

  6. Manchin lost me at “this climate problem is a massive one and we must act” It’s a massive scam would have been accurate. Wonder what Joe bases his view on. Doesn’t tale much courage to vote against completely nuts. Takes more courage to call it out.

    • Wonder what Joe bases his view on.

      His vote was based on what his constituents needed him to do. His words are what his fellow democrats need to hear him say.

    • Yes. Senator Manchin, please define precisely what you mean by “the climate problem.”

      If you equate it to global warming, are you saying we have to end all global warming, or is some amount of warming tolerable. If any warming is intolerable, are you implying the Earth should head back toward the last glacial period when the Chicago area was under 3000 feet of glacial ice and the Boston area was under 4100 feet of ice?

      If you equate it to climate change, what is the ideal climate that we should establish and then fight (i.e., spend any number of $trillions USD per year) to try to prevent such have having any further change? And is the US alone to bear the cost of eliminating global climate change?

    • troe – I agree with you 100%. But why must the senator begin with a statement that his vote contradicts?…

    • In other words, selling WV votes to Chuck Schumer will continue and Manchin is saying as much here.

  7. Joe Manchin recognized that he had to vote against the New Luddite Deal or his political career in coal-rich West Virginia would come to a screeching end.

  8. “the role fossil fuels might play in tackling global warming”
    Sen. Manchin, WV

    I guess Sen. Manchin is trying to play both sides of the argument and making fools of all his constituents in the process with this statement.

  9. When we vote on CC: Kyoto ….. 0 votes for. GND ….. 0 votes for. When it really come down to it I think both sides are well aware of a “no fossil fuel” future without adequate proven replacement. Virtue signaling got us windmills and PV farms and little usable energy for the $Billions US already squandered and it doesn’t take an economist to understand the impact. What I find interesting is how the energy answer is innovation yet we haven’t come close to a replacement for fossil fuels other than nuclear for home and industry yet ‘they’ insist it’s just around the corner. Mollycoddling the eco warriors needs to stop and a dose of reality needs to be administered.

  10. “This climate problem is a massive one and we must act, but aspirational documents will not solve this crisis…”

    .8 degrees of warming since the 1800s
    No increases in severe storms like hurricanes and tornadoes
    Drought is over in CA
    The planet is getting greener
    Humans are thriving

    Trying to find the massive problem

    • .8 degrees of warming since the 1800s

      And most of that occurred prior to the 1940s, long before man’s SUVs started spewing plant food into the atmosphere.

      • It also probably hasn’t warmed that much. The phony “surface data” have been cooled for the past and warmed for the present.

        Plus warming since the end of the LIA has itself been cyclical, within the secular uptrend. For instance, warming between the wars was largely cancelled out by postwar cooling, which ended with the 1977 PDO flip.

  11. The key thing is that the Left has become divisive within itself
    As headlined on this site a few days ago, a party skeptical of the climate promotion won the largest block of seats in the Dutch parliament.
    In looking ahead, Canada’s arrogant and governing Liberals are suffering a huge scandal. And could lose the general election in this October.
    Popular uprisings are setting a trend towards reform of intrusive and costly government.
    This trend will be constructive for the US election in November 2020.
    And having the Dems divided will weaken their campaigning.

  12. You want to believe the Occasional Cortexes of this world are serious when they put up a motion-
    ‘Forthwith no publicly paid official will remain airconditioned under any Govt in which we serve in order to lead from the front for all the people who work in the great outdoors and under the rooves of our factories and workshops. This motion of solidarity and leadership recognises we all have to go back to our grandparents’ times for the sake of our grandchildren’
    Lead us to the promised land oh wise ones.

  13. The GND was “not realistic ” the same way that the ideas of Jim Jones or Chairman Mao were “not realistic”.

      • When your goal is utopia and you end up “somewhere best to avoid” shows how unrealistic your ideas for reaching your goal was.

  14. The maddest thing about the GND is that there is no explanation how its going to make any difference.

    This is so extraordinary. Even were it passed and implemented at vast expense, it would not reduce warming by any measurable amount, because the US is just not emitting a high enough percentage of the global CO2 for its stopping to have any effect.

    Not to mention, the reduction would be swamped in no time by China’s increases.

    The idea that unilateral action by the US can have any effect is crazy. And what is even crazier would be the idea that anyone would follow a US example, should the US do it.

    Its extraordinary that this is never publicly said by anyone during these debates.

    • I don’t care about any of that I just want my living wage for not working and playing computer games all day along with my free health care.

  15. I see from the introductory photo of this story that Kinji? is no the job seeing to it that the right thing is being done in the House and Senate about Climate Change(not).

  16. The real question is who is directing Occasional Cortex? There’s no way that this woman. oher own, has come up with a planned agenda to literally turn the economy of the worlds’ most productive and sophisticated economy into an industrial waste land. I would bet there are a nefarious group of people behind the screen who are commanding this. Much like Canada’s Trudeau, who’s Svengali is the eco fanatic Gerald Butts.

    • It’s not so conspiratorial. She’s a wacky far leftist in a district that will always vote Democrat. She defeated an incumbent in a low turnout primary largely because he was asleep at the wheel. AOC’s chief of staff is a rich business man who used creative (possibly illegal) structures to fund her campaign. This particular versions of the GND was drafted by a bunch of young kids from the Sunrise Movement over the course of a weekend, but the idea itself is recycled.

Comments are closed.