vox--2020-10-07--The best case for and against a fracking ban

During the vice presidential debate , Vice President Mike Pence accused former Vice President Joe Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris of wanting to ban hydraulic fracturing .
“ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes , bury our economy over a $ 2 trillion Green New Deal , ” Pence said .
“ They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking.
” Harris , the Democratic vice presidential candidate , was adamant that this was not true .
“ First of all , I will repeat , and the American people know , that Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ That is a fact .
That is a fact.
” Biden ’ s plan to address climate change calls for the United States to zero out its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 while helping the workers and communities that may suffer job losses in the switch to clean energy .
It does not mention fracking at all .
Trump , meanwhile , has no published plan to deal with climate change .
He has , however , relaxed environmental regulations around mining and drilling in the United States to boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed presidential contenders to address fracking — which involves pumping highly pressurized water , sand , and other chemicals into a rock formation to create fractures that can release trapped oil and gas — because it has radically reshaped the US economic , energy , political , and environmental landscape .
It ’ s turned the United States into the largest oil producer in the world .
It helped pull the country out of a recession .
It ’ s created boomtowns flush with cash in once sparsely populated parts of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the US .
Wastewater injection from fracking wells has also caused a spike in earthquakes .
It has caused local air quality and safety problems .
And while they ’ re cleaner than coal , oil and gas from fracking are still fossil fuels .
For policymakers , the difficult choice is deciding whether the benefits outweigh the harm , and if fuels from fracking can be a stepping stone toward cleaner energy .
“ This is one of those issues where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sam Ori , executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago , told Vox in 2019 .
“ I don ’ t think that there ’ s a really clear case that says fracking is necessarily good or bad , on net.
” And for presidential candidates , it ’ s tough to find the right pitch to voters , who are themselves divided .
A 2019 poll by KFF and the Cook Political Report of voters in the key swing states of Michigan , Minnesota , Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for proposals like the Green New Deal , but much less support for a fracking ban .
In Pennsylvania , 69 percent of swing voters said they support a Green New Deal , but only 39 percent wanted to ban fracking .
It ’ s a microcosm of the broader policy discussion about the role of the fossil fuel industry in the carbon-constrained future , whether it should be fought as an adversary or embraced as a partner .
As for fracking , researchers and analysts have been studying it for years and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here is a summary of the best arguments for and against a ban on fracking .
The best case against a ban : Fracking has reduced greenhouse gas emissions and helped expand clean energy Though hydraulic fracturing as a technique has been around since the 19th century and the first commercial fracking for gas took place in the 1940s , the most recent fracking boom started in earnest around 2005 .
That ’ s when the rising prices of oil and gas forced energy companies to look for other sources , when related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fracking matured , and new estimates revealed the gargantuan amounts of gas stored in formations like Marcellus Shale .
Fracking has now become the dominant technique for extracting oil and gas in the US .
Fracking has risen against the backdrop of the United States ’ massive carbon footprint .
The US is responsible for the highest share of cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions of any county .
Currently , it ’ s the second-largest emitter in the world , behind China .
It also has some of the highest per capita emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if humanity wants to limit warming this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels , countries would need to halve global emissions by as soon as 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050 .
During much of the fracking boom , the US economy grew and emissions declined .
One study found that between 2005 and 2012 , fracking created 725,000 jobs in the industry , not counting related supporting jobs .
“ This has been one of the most dynamic parts of the U.S. economy — you ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yergin , vice chairman of IHS Markit and founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates , told CNBC .
That ’ s largely due to natural gas from fracking displacing coal in electricity production .
Natural gas emits about half of the greenhouse gas emissions of coal per unit of energy .
It doesn ’ t have the massive land footprint that open pit mines or mountaintop removal coal mines do .
While it has its own pollution problems , burning natural gas doesn ’ t produce pollutants like ash and mercury , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years .
“ Regardless of what you believe about the future , shale gas has played a substantial role in getting rid of carbon emissions and conventional emissions from coal , ” said Ori .
A 2013 report from the Breakthrough Institute titled “ Coal Killer ” explained that coal-fired power generation declined from producing 50 percent of US electricity in 2007 to 37 percent in 2012 .
Natural gas from fracking largely rose to fill that void .
The main reason for this shift is that fracked natural gas is cheaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That makes it attractive for utilities , especially in competitive markets .
Many natural gas power plants use combined-cycle gas turbines .
Not only do they produce 50 percent more energy for the same amount of fuel compared to a single-cycle turbine , they can spool up quickly to meet surges in demand or shortfalls from other power producers .
Compared to coal and nuclear power plants that have a harder time ramping up and down , this added flexibility makes natural gas power plants particularly valuable on the grid .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal-fired power plants struggle to compete with natural gas .
Natural gas ’ s flexibility has also eased the integration of variable renewable energy sources like wind and solar power .
When the breezes slow down and clouds form above , natural gas steps in .
This has reduced the need for other ways to compensate for intermittency , like energy storage .
In fact , as fracking has grown in the US , renewable energy generation has doubled since 2008 .
Renewables , including hydropower and biomass , now comprise just over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coupled with nuclear power , about 19 percent of the electricity mix , that still leaves nearly two-thirds of power generation that needs to decarbonize .
And that will take years .
So fracked natural gas ’ s record as a coal slayer and renewable energy booster makes it a valuable weapon in the fight against climate change .
“ If you ’ re talking about natural gas as a decarbonizing fuel while replacing coal , I think the facts on the ground really support that , ” said Alex Trembath , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” report and deputy director at the Breakthrough Institute .
“ We ’ ve actually seen significant growth in solar and wind in particular even alongside the fracking revolution.
” At the same time , fracking has helped insulate the US from global economic shocks , particularly in oil markets .
US shale oil has provided more than half the growth in global oil supplies , so rising tensions and disruptions in countries like Iran , Libya , and Venezuela have barely moved the needle at the gas pump .
“ The oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been pretty muted and a lot of that has to do with the incredible growth of shale oil as a source of new supply in the global market , ” Ori said .
In short , natural gas obtained by fracking has reduced emissions , aided the economy , and helped clean energy rise , while costing less than dirtier fuels .
The best case for a ban : Fracking keeps us dependent on fossil fuels and undermines decarbonization Both the oil and natural gas produced from fracking have their downsides .
Natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( it ’ s now the largest source of electricity in the US ) while oil is mostly used for transportation , like cars , shipping , and aviation .
So while low natural gas prices have helped knock dirty coal off the market , low oil prices driven in part by fracking have encouraged more travel .
In fact , transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gases in the US .
And after years of decline , US emissions in 2018 rose by 3.4 percent .
Low oil prices have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternatives , like electric cars and fuel cell-powered buses .
Instead , the United States has experienced a growing appetite for larger , thirstier cars and more air travel .
Meanwhile , low natural gas prices have had some collateral damage for nuclear power , the largest source of clean electricity in the US .
Some of the nuclear power plants that have announced early retirements are likely to see their capacity replaced by natural gas .
So while replacing coal with natural gas often leads to a reduction in emissions , replacing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natural gas itself can also become a climate problem .
Methane , the dominant component of natural gas , produces less carbon dioxide than coal when burned .
But if methane leaks , which it often does in some quantity during normal gas extraction operations , it becomes a potent greenhouse gas .
Over 100 years , a quantity of methane traps more than 25 times the amount of heat compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide .
Of course , methane is the product , so the gas industry has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are difficult to track , and they could easily overwhelm the gains from replacing coal .
Robert Howarth , a researcher studying shale gas at Cornell University , recently reported that US shale gas production plays an outsized role in global methane emissions .
He estimated that over the past 10 years , more than half of the global increase in methane emissions came from fracking in the US .
“ Natural gas production in the United States is leaking somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 percent of the gas we produce into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a relatively small amount of gas if you think about it .
Most of it is getting to market , ” Howarth said .
“ But that 3.5 percent is enough to do severe damage to the climate.
” This is a higher leakage estimate than the EPA and the industry calculate , but with the Trump administration ’ s ongoing rollbacks of Obama-era regulations on monitoring and restricting fugitive emissions of methane , the problem is poised to worsen .
And then there ’ s the technique of fracking itself .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wells can release toxic chemicals like benzene into the air .
Fracking sites can experience explosions and fires .
They can contaminate drinking water .
More than 17 million people in the US live within a mile of an active fracking well , and research shows that fracking can lead to low birth weight in infants born in that radius .
Many of these environmental risks , on balance , are less than those associated with mining and burning coal .
However , the sudden surge in fracking means many people are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , making it a more vivid political concern .
That ’ s in contrast to coal hazards , which are mostly familiar to the public consciousness .
Another factor is that the business case for fracking is starting to weaken as more drillers declare bankruptcy .
The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that clean energy is already competitive with new natural gas power plants , and by 2035 , it will be cheaper to build new wind , solar , and storage projects than to continue running 90 percent of existing gas power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting climate change , a key factor is time .
Methane leaked from gas wells can stay in the atmosphere for a decade .
Carbon dioxide from burning it can linger for a century .
So it is imperative to ramp down greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible .
Yet every new natural gas power plant represents a decades-long commitment to continue using the fuel .
That means gas plants will have to install carbon capture systems , which would add to their operating costs and worsen the business case further , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be left holding the bag .
“ Not only is natural gas dangerous and destructive , it ’ s increasingly unnecessary , ” said Michael Brune , executive director of the Sierra Club .
“ We do think there should be a national ban on fracking.
” What can a president actually do about fracking ?
President Obama often boasted about the rise of the United States as an energy producer .
President Trump has pushed to leverage US oil and gas in order to exert energy dominance .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fracking at the national level has come to an end .
Now some Democrats are openly hostile to the fossil fuel industry , with Sen. Bernie Sanders calling for criminal prosecution of some companies .
The federal government can limit export licenses for oil and natural gas .
However , a lot of the energy policy in the United States is governed at the state and local level , so a president can ’ t easily shape the agenda without local backing .
At the local level , despite environmental and safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrict fracking .
A ballot measure that would have severely restricted fracking in Colorado failed in 2018 , despite Democrats winning the governorship and majorities in both state houses .
Breakthrough ’ s Trembath argued that a president would best be served by building an off-ramp for the bridge away from fracking , rather than cutting it off .
It would be less disruptive and contentious and would allow the country to continue harnessing the benefits of fracking while coming up with better options .
“ The first way we hasten the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ alternative ] technology cheaper , ” he said .
That would require investment in clean energy research and development , particularly for technologies like long-duration energy storage and advanced nuclear .
Pricing carbon dioxide would also help ensure that the biggest sources of greenhouse gases get reduced first , and the revenue these prices generate could fund further research .
Biden ’ s climate plan stipulates that “ domestic polluters bear the full cost of their carbon pollution.
” So while fracking may continue under a Biden administration , it may become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 7 , 2020 : This story was originally published in 2019 .
It has been updated now to reflect discussion of a fracking ban during the 2020 vice-presidential debate .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

During the vice presidential debate, Vice President Mike Pence accused former Vice President Joe Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris of wanting to ban hydraulic fracturing.
“Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes, bury our economy over a $2 trillion Green New Deal,” Pence said. “They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking.”
Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, was adamant that this was not true. “First of all, I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking,” Harris said. “That is a fact. That is a fact.”
Biden’s plan to address climate change calls for the United States to zero out its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 while helping the workers and communities that may suffer job losses in the switch to clean energy. It does not mention fracking at all.
Trump, meanwhile, has no published plan to deal with climate change. He has, however, relaxed environmental regulations around mining and drilling in the United States to boost US fossil fuel production.
Activists have pushed presidential contenders to address fracking — which involves pumping highly pressurized water, sand, and other chemicals into a rock formation to create fractures that can release trapped oil and gas — because it has radically reshaped the US economic, energy, political, and environmental landscape.
It’s turned the United States into the largest oil producer in the world. It helped pull the country out of a recession. It’s created boomtowns flush with cash in once sparsely populated parts of the country. At the same time, fracking has led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
Wastewater injection from fracking wells has also caused a spike in earthquakes. It has caused local air quality and safety problems. And while they’re cleaner than coal, oil and gas from fracking are still fossil fuels.
For policymakers, the difficult choice is deciding whether the benefits outweigh the harm, and if fuels from fracking can be a stepping stone toward cleaner energy. “This is one of those issues where there’s just so much gray,” Sam Ori, executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, told Vox in 2019. “I don’t think that there’s a really clear case that says fracking is necessarily good or bad, on net.”
And for presidential candidates, it’s tough to find the right pitch to voters, who are themselves divided. A 2019 poll by KFF and the Cook Political Report of voters in the key swing states of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, showed widespread support for proposals like the Green New Deal, but much less support for a fracking ban. In Pennsylvania, 69 percent of swing voters said they support a Green New Deal, but only 39 percent wanted to ban fracking.
It’s a microcosm of the broader policy discussion about the role of the fossil fuel industry in the carbon-constrained future, whether it should be fought as an adversary or embraced as a partner.
As for fracking, researchers and analysts have been studying it for years and still continue to debate its merits. Here is a summary of the best arguments for and against a ban on fracking.
The best case against a ban: Fracking has reduced greenhouse gas emissions and helped expand clean energy
Though hydraulic fracturing as a technique has been around since the 19th century and the first commercial fracking for gas took place in the 1940s, the most recent fracking boom started in earnest around 2005. That’s when the rising prices of oil and gas forced energy companies to look for other sources, when related techniques like horizontal drilling and low-cost slickwater fracking matured, and new estimates revealed the gargantuan amounts of gas stored in formations like Marcellus Shale.
Fracking has now become the dominant technique for extracting oil and gas in the US.
Fracking has risen against the backdrop of the United States’ massive carbon footprint. The US is responsible for the highest share of cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions of any county. Currently, it’s the second-largest emitter in the world, behind China. It also has some of the highest per capita emissions in the world.
Scientists have warned that if humanity wants to limit warming this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, countries would need to halve global emissions by as soon as 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
During much of the fracking boom, the US economy grew and emissions declined. One study found that between 2005 and 2012, fracking created 725,000 jobs in the industry, not counting related supporting jobs. “This has been one of the most dynamic parts of the U.S. economy — you’re talking about millions of jobs,” Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS Markit and founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, told CNBC.
That’s largely due to natural gas from fracking displacing coal in electricity production. Natural gas emits about half of the greenhouse gas emissions of coal per unit of energy. It doesn’t have the massive land footprint that open pit mines or mountaintop removal coal mines do. While it has its own pollution problems, burning natural gas doesn’t produce pollutants like ash and mercury, which can pose health and environmental hazards for years.
“Regardless of what you believe about the future, shale gas has played a substantial role in getting rid of carbon emissions and conventional emissions from coal,” said Ori.
A 2013 report from the Breakthrough Institute titled “Coal Killer” explained that coal-fired power generation declined from producing 50 percent of US electricity in 2007 to 37 percent in 2012. Natural gas from fracking largely rose to fill that void.
The main reason for this shift is that fracked natural gas is cheaper than coal for the energy it produces. That makes it attractive for utilities, especially in competitive markets. Many natural gas power plants use combined-cycle gas turbines. Not only do they produce 50 percent more energy for the same amount of fuel compared to a single-cycle turbine, they can spool up quickly to meet surges in demand or shortfalls from other power producers. Compared to coal and nuclear power plants that have a harder time ramping up and down, this added flexibility makes natural gas power plants particularly valuable on the grid.
Even the newest, cleanest, more efficient coal-fired power plants struggle to compete with natural gas.
Natural gas’s flexibility has also eased the integration of variable renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. When the breezes slow down and clouds form above, natural gas steps in. This has reduced the need for other ways to compensate for intermittency, like energy storage.
In fact, as fracking has grown in the US, renewable energy generation has doubled since 2008. Renewables, including hydropower and biomass, now comprise just over 17 percent of total US electricity generation. Coupled with nuclear power, about 19 percent of the electricity mix, that still leaves nearly two-thirds of power generation that needs to decarbonize. And that will take years.
So fracked natural gas’s record as a coal slayer and renewable energy booster makes it a valuable weapon in the fight against climate change.
“If you’re talking about natural gas as a decarbonizing fuel while replacing coal, I think the facts on the ground really support that,” said Alex Trembath, a coauthor of the “Coal Killer” report and deputy director at the Breakthrough Institute. “We’ve actually seen significant growth in solar and wind in particular even alongside the fracking revolution.”
At the same time, fracking has helped insulate the US from global economic shocks, particularly in oil markets. US shale oil has provided more than half the growth in global oil supplies, so rising tensions and disruptions in countries like Iran, Libya, and Venezuela have barely moved the needle at the gas pump.
“The oil price impacts of those big disruptions have been pretty muted and a lot of that has to do with the incredible growth of shale oil as a source of new supply in the global market,” Ori said.
In short, natural gas obtained by fracking has reduced emissions, aided the economy, and helped clean energy rise, while costing less than dirtier fuels.
The best case for a ban: Fracking keeps us dependent on fossil fuels and undermines decarbonization
Both the oil and natural gas produced from fracking have their downsides. Natural gas is mainly used for power generation (it’s now the largest source of electricity in the US) while oil is mostly used for transportation, like cars, shipping, and aviation.
So while low natural gas prices have helped knock dirty coal off the market, low oil prices driven in part by fracking have encouraged more travel. In fact, transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gases in the US. And after years of decline, US emissions in 2018 rose by 3.4 percent.
Low oil prices have undermined the business case for cleaner transportation alternatives, like electric cars and fuel cell-powered buses. Instead, the United States has experienced a growing appetite for larger, thirstier cars and more air travel.
Meanwhile, low natural gas prices have had some collateral damage for nuclear power, the largest source of clean electricity in the US. Some of the nuclear power plants that have announced early retirements are likely to see their capacity replaced by natural gas. So while replacing coal with natural gas often leads to a reduction in emissions, replacing nuclear energy leads to an increase.
Natural gas itself can also become a climate problem. Methane, the dominant component of natural gas, produces less carbon dioxide than coal when burned. But if methane leaks, which it often does in some quantity during normal gas extraction operations, it becomes a potent greenhouse gas. Over 100 years, a quantity of methane traps more than 25 times the amount of heat compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide.
Of course, methane is the product, so the gas industry has an incentive to limit leaks. But leaks are difficult to track, and they could easily overwhelm the gains from replacing coal.
Robert Howarth, a researcher studying shale gas at Cornell University, recently reported that US shale gas production plays an outsized role in global methane emissions. He estimated that over the past 10 years, more than half of the global increase in methane emissions came from fracking in the US.
“Natural gas production in the United States is leaking somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 percent of the gas we produce into the atmosphere which is, you know a relatively small amount of gas if you think about it. Most of it is getting to market,” Howarth said. “But that 3.5 percent is enough to do severe damage to the climate.”
This is a higher leakage estimate than the EPA and the industry calculate, but with the Trump administration’s ongoing rollbacks of Obama-era regulations on monitoring and restricting fugitive emissions of methane, the problem is poised to worsen.
And then there’s the technique of fracking itself. It requires a massive volume of water. Wells can release toxic chemicals like benzene into the air. Fracking sites can experience explosions and fires. They can contaminate drinking water. More than 17 million people in the US live within a mile of an active fracking well, and research shows that fracking can lead to low birth weight in infants born in that radius.
Many of these environmental risks, on balance, are less than those associated with mining and burning coal. However, the sudden surge in fracking means many people are being confronted with its impacts for the first time, making it a more vivid political concern. That’s in contrast to coal hazards, which are mostly familiar to the public consciousness.
Another factor is that the business case for fracking is starting to weaken as more drillers declare bankruptcy. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that clean energy is already competitive with new natural gas power plants, and by 2035, it will be cheaper to build new wind, solar, and storage projects than to continue running 90 percent of existing gas power plants.
And when it comes to limiting climate change, a key factor is time. Methane leaked from gas wells can stay in the atmosphere for a decade. Carbon dioxide from burning it can linger for a century. So it is imperative to ramp down greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. Yet every new natural gas power plant represents a decades-long commitment to continue using the fuel. That means gas plants will have to install carbon capture systems, which would add to their operating costs and worsen the business case further, or some poor investor is going to be left holding the bag.
“Not only is natural gas dangerous and destructive, it’s increasingly unnecessary,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “We do think there should be a national ban on fracking.”
What can a president actually do about fracking?
President Obama often boasted about the rise of the United States as an energy producer. President Trump has pushed to leverage US oil and gas in order to exert energy dominance. But it’s clear that the era of bipartisan support for fracking at the national level has come to an end.
Obama: "Suddenly America is the largest oil producer, that was me people ... say thank you." pic.twitter.com/VfQfX1SR0x — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 28, 2018
Now some Democrats are openly hostile to the fossil fuel industry, with Sen. Bernie Sanders calling for criminal prosecution of some companies.
The federal government can limit export licenses for oil and natural gas. However, a lot of the energy policy in the United States is governed at the state and local level, so a president can’t easily shape the agenda without local backing.
At the local level, despite environmental and safety concerns, voters have been reluctant to restrict fracking. A ballot measure that would have severely restricted fracking in Colorado failed in 2018, despite Democrats winning the governorship and majorities in both state houses.
Breakthrough’s Trembath argued that a president would best be served by building an off-ramp for the bridge away from fracking, rather than cutting it off. It would be less disruptive and contentious and would allow the country to continue harnessing the benefits of fracking while coming up with better options.
“The first way we hasten the end of the bridge is to make the [alternative] technology cheaper,” he said.
That would require investment in clean energy research and development, particularly for technologies like long-duration energy storage and advanced nuclear. Pricing carbon dioxide would also help ensure that the biggest sources of greenhouse gases get reduced first, and the revenue these prices generate could fund further research. Biden’s climate plan stipulates that “domestic polluters bear the full cost of their carbon pollution.” So while fracking may continue under a Biden administration, it may become more costly over time.
Update, October 7, 2020: This story was originally published in 2019. It has been updated now to reflect discussion of a fracking ban during the 2020 vice-presidential debate.


vox--2020-10-07--Why it’s still unlikely we’ll have a Covid-19 vaccine before Election Day

In the vice presidential debate Wednesday , Vice President Mike Pence echoed President Donald Trump ’ s frequent claim that a Covid-19 vaccine could be ready this year .
“ The reality is , we ’ re going to have a vaccine in record time , in less than a year .
Unheard-of time , ” said Pence .
“ We have five companies in phase three clinical trials , and we ’ re producing tens of millions of doses.
” Trump also put out a video Wednesday from the White House saying that a vaccine would be ready soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to have a great vaccine very , very shortly .
I think we should have it before the election , but frankly the politics gets involved and that ’ s okay , they want to play their games , it ’ s going to be right after the election , ” Trump said .
It ’ s clear that Trump thinks a Covid-19 vaccine would improve his electoral prospects , and he has been leaning on regulators like the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine on this timeline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ record time , researchers and other experts say such a deadline is unlikely .
Even the Trump administration ’ s own health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said November is nearly impossible .
There are now 11 vaccines in phase 3 trials , including candidates from companies like Moderna , AstraZeneca , and Pfizer .
However , these companies are only just beginning to wrap up enrollment in large-scale clinical trials , at which point they will have to administer the vaccine and observe infection patterns , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bancel said on September 30 said that his company ’ s vaccine , which is one of the candidates furthest ahead in clinical trials , would not be ready for widespread distribution until next spring .
He told the Financial Times that the company wouldn ’ t even consider applying for an emergency use authorization until November 25 .
And although there ’ s currently no evidence that the White House is directly meddling in vaccine research , some scientists worry that the president ’ s public pronouncements about a vaccine — especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospects — are a form of interference that could undermine the fragile public confidence needed to deploy it successfully .
“ [ Trump has ] created enough perception of political interference that there may not be deep trust in a vaccine , even if it ’ s a good product , ” said Nicole Lurie , who led emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) under President Barack Obama .
“ There is incredible public skepticism of the [ Food and Drug Administration ] because of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorizations , and because the president appears to continue to try to mess with the system.
” In March , after the president repeatedly promoted the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 , the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for the medicine , despite scant evidence of its effectiveness .
In June , the FDA revoked this authorization .
However , according to researchers , it ’ s unlikely the FDA would do something similar for a vaccine , given the vastly higher stakes for public health .
Even getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a vaccine would require much more information than it has now , and gathering that data requires several critical and time-consuming steps .
A Covid-19 vaccine may be ready in record time , but the chances of that happening before the November election are minuscule .
Why getting a vaccine approved by November is nearly impossible Prior to the coronavirus , the fastest a vaccine had ever been developed was four years ( for mumps ) .
Most vaccines have taken a decade or longer .
But with the Covid-19 pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of money and knowhow into the vaccine effort .
That ’ s led to rapid progress .
It took researchers just over two months between the time the virus ’ s genome was sequenced to when phase 1 human vaccine trials began .
There are now six vaccine candidates in phase 3 clinical trials , the final step before a vaccine gets the green light for widespread use .
That ’ s why some scientists are optimistic that a vaccine could gain approval by the end of the year or early 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tedious .
There ’ s little that can be done to speed them up , and they ’ ve only just begun .
Although the Russian government recently said it has a Covid-19 vaccine ready to go , other researchers have warned that the vaccine , known as Sputnik V , didn ’ t go through this critical step and was tested in only 76 people .
And even if it is a viable vaccine , it would still need to gain FDA approval before it could be used in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zenilman , a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who has overseen clinical trials for vaccines , explained that Covid-19 phase 3 trials are large , aiming to enroll 30,000 participants each .
For example , Moderna , a company developing an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine , is one of the teams that ’ s furthest along .
It was the first in the US to start enrolling participants across 89 sites for its phase 3 trial .
Phase 3 requires recruiting participants from more diverse backgrounds compared with those in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent the population at large , including people with some preexisting health conditions .
( Participants are screened to ensure that they don ’ t have conditions like immune system disorders that could cause complications with a vaccine . )
These participants also have to consent to being tracked by scientists for the duration of the trial , which is typically two years .
They ’ re randomly split into groups that receive either the actual vaccine or a placebo .
In a double-blind trial , neither the recipients nor the people administering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received the actual vaccine .
That ensures participants won ’ t change their behavior in a way that could interfere with the trial ( a person who knows they have a Covid-19 vaccine could end up taking more risks , for example ) .
Finding tens of thousands of people who meet all of these requirements for a phase 3 trial is tedious .
Simply enrolling enough people is a process that can take months .
Although some Covid-19 vaccine phase 3 trials began in July , few have completed the enrollment process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrapping up enrollment .
After getting consent from volunteers and enrolling them in the trial , you have to give them the vaccine .
Many Covid-19 vaccine candidates require two doses spaced up to four weeks apart , so just getting someone the full vaccine dose can take around a month .
For most of the vaccine candidates in phase 3 trials , that would take them well into , if not past , October .
“ Then you have to wait for people to get Covid , and you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a certain number of Covid cases , ” Zenilman said .
To get a statistically meaningful result , researchers typically wait until they see around 150 infections in their group .
At that point , they can “ break the blind ” and see who got the vaccine and who got the placebo — and compare the numbers to see whether it ’ s working .
Right now , many places in the US are still maintaining pandemic control measures such as social distancing and mask-wearing .
Such tactics help control the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine trial , they also limit how quickly research teams can get the data necessary to draw conclusions about whether the vaccine is working .
That ’ s why researchers are aiming to test their vaccines in rising Covid-19 hot spots .
There is no guarantee that any vaccine will clear clinical trials .
And the first vaccine to gain approval would not be available for widespread use right away .
Health officials have to contend with the logistics of manufacturing , distributing , and administering the millions of doses needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take years .
It ’ s also likely that no single vaccine will be suited for everyone .
Several vaccines will be needed to protect different demographics , including older people , those with weaker immune systems , or those with certain preexisting health conditions .
So even after the first Covid-19 vaccine gets approved , some people will still have to wait for other clinical trials to conclude .
Officials say they will not budge on vaccine safety and efficacy rules FDA regulators are adamant that a vaccine will not be approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective .
According to FDA guidelines , a vaccine needs to provide protection against the coronavirus for at least 50 percent of the people who get it .
The safety benchmarks are higher for vaccines than for other drugs because vaccines are given to vastly more people , which magnifies infrequent problems .
And since vaccines are given to healthy people rather than those who are already sick , there is a lower tolerance for side effects .
But at the same time , the HHS launched the $ 10 billion Operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim of delivering 300 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine by January 2021 .
In an August 7 editorial in JAMA , FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn acknowledged the tension between the need for speed and the need to hew closely to established rules .
Hahn and his co-authors — Anand Shah and Peter Marks — wrote that “ the emphasis on speed has provoked public anxiety about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines developed on expedited timelines .
Among the concerns are that the regulatory standards for approval will be lowered under political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hahn and his co-authors also wrote that “ there is a line separating the government ’ s efforts to focus resources and funding to scale vaccine development from FDA ’ s review processes.
” In other words , the FDA says it will not compromise its standards for approving a vaccine , despite pressure for faster results .
But what about the emergency use authorization ( EUA ) process ?
Could the FDA create a limited exception for a vaccine like it did with hydroxychloroquine ?
Peter Marks , the director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FDA ( the body that governs vaccine approval ) , said the agency could do that , in theory .
But as with the agency ’ s standard process , the rubric is stricter for a vaccine than for a drug , and regulators would still need to see data demonstrating that a vaccine meets the minimum benchmark of preventing infection in 50 percent of people who have been vaccinated .
“ I think as we think about EUA here , the calculus for a vaccine is going to be different than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told reporters at the National Press Foundation on August 12 .
“ I think we ... optimally would like to see the data that ’ s from a trial that ’ s reached its efficacy endpoint.
” That would come near the end of a phase 3 trial , which , again , is unlikely to yield results for months .
So there may not be enough evidence to warrant vaccine approval before the November election , even on an emergency basis .
And if there were political meddling to push out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of all these constraints , there would be strong opposition among the career scientists at the FDA .
“ I think you would see a revolt at the agency , ” Zenilman said .
Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told Vox in a recent interview with Today , Explained host Sean Rameswaram that he is also confident the process will be transparent .
“ The FDA has pledged publicly multiple times that they will not approve a vaccine unless they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s safe and effective ... And if it turns out somebody tries to force it out , I tell you , I will be one of the first ones that will object to that , ” Fauci said .
Trust is critical for deploying a Covid-19 vaccine .
But trust is fragile .
A vaccine can ’ t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own .
It has to be given to enough people to achieve herd immunity , at which point a large enough percentage of a population is protected against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t easily spread .
Even in the most ideal scenario with a highly effective vaccine , getting to herd immunity would require immunizing millions of people .
And already , many in the United States are saying they wouldn ’ t get vaccinated .
A Gallup poll conducted July 20 to August 7 found that one-third of Americans said they would not get an approved Covid-19 vaccine if it were ready immediately .
A CNN poll conducted August 12-15 found that 56 percent of Americans said they would get a vaccine , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether due to general hesitancy around vaccines or swirling conspiracy theories , public health researchers are concerned that if enough people don ’ t elect to get immunized , the Covid-19 pandemic will persist .
That ’ s why even the appearance that political considerations influenced vaccine approval could be dangerous .
Vaccine makers have pushed back against the pressure to speed up development even further as well because if the public perceives a vaccine was rushed , it could make people hesitant to use their product .
“ The perception of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurried really risks trust , ” said Jesse Goodman , a former chief scientist at the FDA who ’ s now a professor of medicine at Georgetown University .
“ It ’ s not just trust in this Covid vaccine , but trust in the whole public health response to Covid and trust in vaccines in general.
” Restoring that trust will take time .
It will require transparency about the progress and results of clinical trials , as well as how decisions are made in federal agencies .
It will also demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might not be enough .
“ Personally , I think it will take a new president and new leadership at the top of the FDA before we ’ re going to be at a point where the public can start to have more trust , ” said Lurie .
Which means that even with the urgency of thousands of people dying , taking the time to get a vaccine right is critical — from the vaccine itself to how it ’ s tested , documented , communicated , and administered .
Rushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Food and Drug Administration officials on a key committee said Thursday they were not planning to make a decision about granting emergency approval for a Covid-19 vaccine just yet. This all but ends the chances of a vaccine getting the green light in the US before the November 3 presidential election, and likely over the next month.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was convened to go over the early results of Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials, the benchmarks to approve a vaccine candidate, and how to maintain safety throughout the process. However, no decisions are on the agenda.
“Of note, the committee is not asked today to vote on any issues discussed,” said Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDA during the meeting.
President Trump has made it clear that a Covid-19 vaccine would improve his electoral prospects, and he has been leaning on regulators like the FDA to approve a vaccine on this timeline. That’s raised concerns that the agency would yield to political pressure and grant approval to a vaccine before it’s ready.
Trump also put out a video earlier this month saying that a vaccine would be cleared for use soon after the election. “We’re going to have a great vaccine very, very shortly,” Trump said. “I think we should have it before the election, but frankly the politics gets involved and that’s okay, they want to play their games, it’s going to be right after the election.”
But while vaccine development is proceeding in record time, researchers and other experts have said many times such a deadline is unlikely. Even the Trump administration’s own health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have already said November is nearly impossible.
There are now 11 vaccines in phase 3 trials, including candidates from companies like Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. However, some of these companies have only just completed enrollment in large-scale clinical trials, at which point they will have to administer the vaccine and observe infection patterns, which could take months.
And although there’s currently no evidence that the White House is directly meddling in vaccine research, some scientists worry that the president’s public pronouncements about a vaccine — especially ones so nakedly tied to his political prospects — are a form of interference that could undermine the fragile public confidence needed to deploy it successfully.
Trump has “created enough perception of political interference that there may not be deep trust in a vaccine, even if it’s a good product,” said Nicole Lurie, who led emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Barack Obama. “There is incredible public skepticism of the [FDA] because of what’s happened with prior emergency use authorizations, and because the president appears to continue to try to mess with the system.”
However, according to researchers, it’s unlikely the FDA would compromise a vaccine, given the vastly higher stakes for public health. Even getting to the point of considering emergency use for a vaccine would require much more information than it has now, and gathering that data requires several critical and time-consuming steps.
Why getting a vaccine approved by November is nearly impossible
Prior to the coronavirus, the fastest a vaccine had ever been developed was four years (for mumps). Most vaccines have taken a decade or longer.
But with the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists and governments have poured a staggering amount of money and know-how into the vaccine effort. That’s led to rapid progress.
It took researchers just over two months between the time the virus’s genome was sequenced and when phase 1 human vaccine trials began. There are now 11 vaccine candidates in phase 3 clinical trials, the final step before a vaccine gets the green light for widespread use.
That’s why some scientists are optimistic that a vaccine could gain approval by the end of the year or early 2021.
But phase 3 trials are slow and tedious. There’s little that can be done to speed them up, and they’ve only just begun. Although the Russian government recently said it has a Covid-19 vaccine ready to go, other researchers have warned that the vaccine, known as Sputnik V, didn’t go through this critical step and was tested in only 76 people. And even if it is a viable vaccine, it would still need to gain FDA approval before it could be used in the US, which demands more data.
Jonathan Zenilman, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who has overseen clinical trials for vaccines, explained that Covid-19 phase 3 trials are large, aiming to enroll 30,000 participants each. For example, Moderna, a company developing an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, is one of the teams that’s furthest along. It was the first in the US to start enrolling participants across 89 sites for its phase 3 trial.
Phase 3 requires recruiting participants from more diverse backgrounds compared with those in earlier testing stages in order to better represent the population at large, including people with some preexisting health conditions. (Participants are screened to ensure they don’t have conditions like immune system disorders that could cause complications with a vaccine.)
These participants also have to consent to being tracked by scientists for the duration of the trial, which is typically two years. They’re randomly split into groups that receive either the vaccine or a placebo. In a double-blind trial, neither the recipients nor the people administering the vaccine know at the outset who received the vaccine. That ensures participants won’t change their behavior in a way that could interfere with the trial (a person who knows they have a Covid-19 vaccine could end up taking more risks, for example).
Finding tens of thousands of people who meet all these requirements for a phase 3 trial is tedious. Simply enrolling enough people is a process that can take months.
Although some Covid-19 vaccine phase 3 trials began in July, few have completed the enrollment process. Moderna said it is close to wrapping up enrollment.
After getting consent from volunteers and enrolling them in the trial, you have to give them the vaccine. Many Covid-19 vaccine candidates require two doses spaced up to four weeks apart, so just getting someone the full vaccine dose can take around a month. For most of the vaccine candidates in phase 3 trials, that would take them well into, if not past, October.
“Then you have to wait for people to get Covid, and you can’t do anything with the data until you have a certain number of Covid cases,” Zenilman said. To get a statistically meaningful result, researchers typically wait until they see around 150 infections in their group. At that point, they can “break the blind” and see who got the vaccine and who got the placebo — and compare the numbers to see whether it’s working.
Right now, many places in the US are still maintaining pandemic control measures such as social distancing and mask-wearing. Such tactics help control the spread of the virus, but for a vaccine trial, they also limit how quickly research teams can get the data necessary to draw conclusions about whether the vaccine is working. That’s why researchers are aiming to test their vaccines in rising Covid-19 hot spots.
There is also no guarantee that any vaccine will clear clinical trials. And the first vaccine to gain approval would not be available for widespread use right away. Health officials have to contend with the logistics of manufacturing, distributing, and administering the millions of doses needed to control the Covid-19 pandemic, which could take years.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said on September 30 that his company’s vaccine, which is one of the candidates furthest ahead in clinical trials, would not be ready for widespread distribution until next spring. He told the Financial Times that the company wouldn’t even consider applying for an emergency use authorization until November 25.
It’s also likely that no single vaccine will be suited to everyone. Several vaccines will be needed to protect different demographics, including older people, those with weaker immune systems, or those with certain preexisting health conditions. So even after the first Covid-19 vaccine gets approved, some people will still have to wait for other clinical trials to conclude.
Officials say they will not budge on vaccine safety and efficacy rules
FDA regulators are adamant that a vaccine will not be approved until it is demonstrated to be safe and effective. According to FDA guidelines, a vaccine needs to provide protection against the coronavirus for at least 50 percent of the people who get it. The safety benchmarks are higher for vaccines than for other drugs because vaccines are given to vastly more people, which magnifies infrequent problems. And since vaccines are given to healthy people rather than those who are already sick, there is a lower tolerance for side effects.
But at the same time, HHS launched the $10 billion Operation Warp Speed in June with the explicit aim of delivering 300 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine by January 2021.
In an August 7 editorial in JAMA, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn acknowledged the tension between the need for speed and the need to hew closely to established rules.
Hahn and his co-authors, Anand Shah and Peter Marks, wrote that “the emphasis on speed has provoked public anxiety about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines developed on expedited timelines. Among the concerns are that the regulatory standards for approval will be lowered under political pressure for a vaccine.”
However, Hahn and his co-authors also wrote that “there is a line separating the government’s efforts to focus resources and funding to scale vaccine development from FDA’s review processes.” In other words, the FDA says it will not compromise its standards for approving a vaccine, despite pressure for faster results.
But what about the emergency use authorization (EUA) process? Could the FDA create a limited exception for a vaccine like it did with hydroxychloroquine?
Marks, the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA (the body that governs vaccine approval), said the agency could do that, in theory. But as with the agency’s standard process, the rubric is stricter for a vaccine than for a drug, and regulators would still need to see data demonstrating that a vaccine meets the minimum benchmark of preventing infection in 50 percent of people who have been vaccinated.
“I think as we think about EUA here, the calculus for a vaccine is going to be different than the calculus for therapeutic,” Marks told reporters at the National Press Foundation on August 12. “I think we ... optimally would like to see the data that’s from a trial that’s reached its efficacy endpoint.”
That would come near the end of a phase 3 trial, which, again, is unlikely to yield results for months. So there may not be enough evidence to warrant vaccine approval before the November election, even on an emergency basis.
And if there were political meddling to push out a vaccine before it’s ready, in spite of all these constraints, there would be strong opposition among the career scientists at the FDA. “I think you would see a revolt at the agency,” Zenilman said.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a recent interview with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram that he is also confident the process will be transparent.
“The FDA has pledged publicly multiple times that they will not approve a vaccine unless they’ve established that nonpolitical scientists agree that it’s safe and effective ... And if it turns out somebody tries to force it out, I tell you, I will be one of the first ones that will object to that,” Fauci said.
Trust is critical for deploying a Covid-19 vaccine. But trust is fragile.
A vaccine can’t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own. It has to be given to enough people to achieve herd immunity, at which point a large enough percentage of a population is protected against the virus so that it can’t easily spread.
Even in the most ideal scenario with a highly effective vaccine, getting to herd immunity would require immunizing millions of people. And already, many in the United States are saying they wouldn’t get vaccinated. A Gallup poll conducted July 20 to August 7 found that one-third of Americans said they would not get an approved Covid-19 vaccine if it were ready immediately. A CNN poll conducted August 12-15 found that 56 percent of Americans said they would get a vaccine, a decline from 66 percent in May.
Whether due to general hesitancy around vaccines or swirling conspiracy theories, public health researchers are concerned that if enough people don’t elect to get immunized, the Covid-19 pandemic will persist.
That’s why even the appearance that political considerations influenced vaccine approval could be dangerous.
Vaccine makers have pushed back against the pressure to speed up development even further as well because if the public perceives a vaccine was rushed, it could make people hesitant to use their product.
“The perception of political pressure and the perception of things being hurried really risks trust,” said Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA who’s now a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. “It’s not just trust in this Covid vaccine, but trust in the whole public health response to Covid and trust in vaccines in general.”
In March, after the president repeatedly promoted the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for the medicine, despite scant evidence of its effectiveness. In June, the FDA revoked this authorization.
Restoring that trust will take time. It will require transparency about the progress and results of clinical trials, as well as how decisions are made in federal agencies. It will also demand clear and coherent messaging.
But even that might not be enough.
“Personally, I think it will take a new president and new leadership at the top of the FDA before we’re going to be at a point where the public can start to have more trust,” said Lurie.
Which means that even with the urgency of thousands of people dying, taking the time to get a vaccine right is critical — from the vaccine itself to how it’s tested, documented, communicated, and administered. Rushing will likely only cost us more time.


vox--2020-10-07--What Joe Biden was trying to say about the Green New Deal

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was widely acknowledged to be , in the immortal words of CNN ’ s Dana Bash , a “ shitshow.
” Scarcely a full sentence or coherent thought was heard the entire night .
Trump interrupted so often and told so many lies that Fox News moderator Chris Wallace was rendered ornamental .
We should probably all just forget it as soon as possible .
But before we do , it ’ s worth looking a little closer at one brief episode — since the Green New Deal popped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To everyone ’ s surprise ( it wasn ’ t on the advance list of topics ) , Chris Wallace asked a question about climate change .
As is to be expected from a conservative , he framed it as a trade-off between the environment and the economy .
In the ensuing shouting , Trump accused Biden of supporting “ the radical Green New Deal , ” which he alleged would cost “ $ 100 trillion.
” ( For those who are wondering , that number is from a ludicrous “ study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Action Forum . )
Biden responded , “ The Green New Deal is not my plan.
” Then , just a few minutes later , he said , “ The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward.
” Then , minutes later , “ No , I don ’ t support the Green New Deal.
” He supports “ the Biden plan , which is different than what [ Trump ] calls the radical Green New Deal.
” Minutes later , sleuths on the right turned up language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal a “ crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
” Right-wing media worked furiously to make this a story , trying to start an intra-left feud by saying that Biden was repudiating the radical left .
It doesn ’ t seem to have worked .
Climate activists , like Evan Weber , co-founder and political director of the Sunrise Movement , didn ’ t take the bait , perhaps because it was a little too obvious what Trump was trying to do .
Nonetheless , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on here , because it ’ s part of a political dynamic that goes back decades — and may finally , at long last , be changing .
Republicans are working furiously to shore up the “ environment versus economy ” frame Around the time of Ronald Reagan and the ascendance of movement conservatism , the GOP began lumping environmental policy into the same big bucket as all progressive social or economic policy : pie-in-the-sky dreams that would raise taxes and damage the economy .
Thanks to decades of subsequent repetition — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ environment vs. economy ” frame has become ubiquitous enough to seep out of politics into popular culture .
Even people who claim to know very little about politics will have the impression , the feeling , that it ’ s true .
It was through that basic frame that climate change entered US politics .
I ’ ve argued for years ( 2010 , 2013 ) that climate is ill-suited to that frame , that calling it “ environmental ” serves to shrink and distort it in the public mind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how it was discussed for most of the 2000s and 2010s .
Climate advocates beat their heads against the frame for years , talking about “ green jobs , ” new industries , and competing with China in global markets .
Then-Rep. Jay Inslee co-wrote a whole book about the green economy back in 2013 .
Thanks in no small part to the youth climate movement and the Green New Deal resolution , formally introduced by Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be giving way , at least among Democrats , at least on climate change .
Within the party , the center of gravity on climate has moved considerably to the left and there is more policy alignment than at any time in recent memory .
As conservative tropes lose their potency outside the bubble , those inside the bubble double and triple down on them .
So it is with the Green New Deal .
From the outset , the right has worked frantically to define the GND as the most unrealistic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote last April , in the months following the introduction of the GND , Fox News discussed it more than CNN and MSNBC combined and its viewers evinced the highest awareness of it .
In the same poll , only 1 percent of Fox viewers were undecided about their opinion of the GND ; 91 percent opposed it .
The right seized on the GND and defined it in the most lurid terms — it would ban cows and planes , take away everyone ’ s SUVs , and cost “ one-hundred TRILLION @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular need for sophistication or mainstream credibility outside their echo chamber , so the GND has simply become a trigger for every moldy critique of environmentalism that the right had laying around , in its silliest possible terms .
“ They want to take out the cows !
” Trump said .
( Similarly , Joe Biden is going to destroy suburbs , the Second Amendment , the middle class , and God . )
During the vice presidential debate , Vice President Mike Pence brought it up , saying : “ Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes , bury our economy over a $ 2 trillion Green New Deal.
” Later , he added , “ They would impose the Green New Deal , which would crush American energy , would increase the energy costs of American families in their homes and literally would crush American jobs.
” The GND of the right-wing imagination bears virtually no resemblance to the spirit or language of the thing itself .
It has become a symbol , a vessel for stale resentments .
The Green New Deal is a symbol on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become a symbol on the left , too .
It was never a specific set of policy proposals , and there is , to this day , no “ official ” GND policy agenda .
Numerous nonprofit research and advocacy groups have released their own versions ; the Green Party has a version ; various international groups and groups in other countries have their own versions .
The GND is not a particular set of policy proposals but an idea : an ambitious effort equal to the challenge of climate change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most from it , free of the political dogmas and self-imposed restraints of neoliberalism and focused on equity and justice .
Different groups and constituencies will fill in policy details based on their individual interests and concerns .
It ’ s the idea of the GND , the positive symbol , that has remained resilient in the face of concerted right-wing attacks .
And it is the idea that Biden cites as his inspiration .
But he can not , and should not , simply adopt it as his own .
The Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole litter of policy proposals Insofar as the GND has any policy content , it suggests ambitious action in three areas : stringent standards to accelerate decarbonization in key sectors like electricity , buildings , and transportation ; large-scale , job-creating public investments in clean energy projects , green infrastructure , and vulnerable communities ; and an overall focus on justice , such that the communities most at risk , from either climate change or the clean energy transition , receive the most assistance .
This basic recipe — standards , investments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Biden refers to on his website as a “ crucial framework for meeting climate challenges.
” It is the framework that inspired , to one degree or another , virtually every climate plan released across the left over the past few years , from nonprofit green and environmental justice groups to union groups to Congress to presidential candidates .
It is the framework that inspired Biden ’ s beefed-up climate plan .
He didn ’ t take everything from the original GND — he ’ s not offering a job guarantee or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put together a credible version of the basic SIJ framework .
Nonetheless , he would rightly be seen as presumptuous and insincere if he simply called his plan the “ Green New Deal.
” The GND is , and ought to remain , its own thing .
Biden needs to steer between the symbols , toward policy Biden ’ s political challenge , in the debates and the race more broadly , is to steer clear of the symbol that the GND has become on both sides .
He needs to avoid getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fantasy that Fox News has made of the GND — the one with no hamburgers , the one Trump kept yelling about onstage at the debate .
Believe it or not , there are wavering , undecided voters out there who might hold that against him .
It feeds the “ Biden is controlled by the radical left ” narrative being pushed so hard on conservative and social media right now .
He also needs to avoid being seen as appropriating what has become a kind of North Star to climate activists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own path , not simply accepting what the left has offered .
That ’ s why he calls his plan ( or at least did at the debate ) the “ Biden Green Deal.
” He needs , and climate activists need , for there to be a symbol of ultimate progressive ambition that is too far for him to reach , something that he , as a moderate , can publicly opt against .
Activists need room on the left from which to push him when he takes office .
And he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edges and producing a more sensible version of the progressive agenda .
Biden could pull off a political hat trick on climate Not many committed lefties wanted Joe Biden as their candidate , but looking back over the race so far , in light of the stability of the polls and Biden ’ s strength among key swing demographics ( like older people ) , there does seem to be a weird match of the man to the moment .
He might be just the guy to put a genial , moderate face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly resurgent left is pushing ambitious policies on Biden , from Medicare-for-all to justice system reform to the Green New Deal .
He has room to welcome their spirit but to adopt more reasonable versions of his own , and because he is widely seen as a moderate , a party man , it ’ s plausible to voters .
But the thing is , those “ moderate ” versions Biden is crafting amount to the most ambitious progressive policy agenda a Democratic presidential candidate has run on in the modern era , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Hillary Clinton ever put forward ( and far more ambitious than anything Congress is likely to pass ) .
It ’ s true on health care , race , policing , and infrastructure — and it ’ s true on climate .
Biden ’ s climate plan is easily the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate .
It would target 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 , which is faster than even the most progressive states have pushed .
It would invest $ 2 trillion and channel 40 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities .
It would retrofit millions of buildings , ramp up federal research , reorient US foreign policy around climate , beef up EPA enforcement , and on and on .
It ’ s not the GND , but it ’ s a really good deal .
To have any hope of doing any of it , Biden needs to get elected , and to do that , he needs to walk a fine line : avoid appearing too closely aligned with the activist left , to avoid spooking swing voters , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left on his side .
That , in a nutshell , is what he was trying to do at the debate , and what Trump was deliberately trying to prevent him from doing .
No one would ever accuse Biden of being rhetorically fleet of foot .
And on the debate stage he was up against a torrent of obnoxious , badgering bullshit , which would be difficult for anyone .
So his answers on the GND weren ’ t exactly clear , and they were easy for the right to demagogue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , faded quickly and did not produce the hoped-for intramural fight on the left .
As much as it loves intramural fights , even the left isn ’ t that foolish .
Climate activists understand the stakes of this election all too well .
It is the most important of their lives .
They know that only a decisive Biden victory makes any kind of deal — new , green , Biden , or otherwise — possible .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was widely acknowledged to be, in the immortal words of CNN’s Dana Bash, a “shitshow.” Scarcely a full sentence or coherent thought was heard the entire night. Trump interrupted so often and told so many lies that Fox News moderator Chris Wallace was rendered ornamental. We should probably all just forget it as soon as possible. But before we do, it’s worth looking a little closer at one brief episode — since the Green New Deal popped up again Wednesday in the vice presidential debate.
To everyone’s surprise (it wasn’t on the advance list of topics), Chris Wallace asked a question about climate change. As is to be expected from a conservative, he framed it as a trade-off between the environment and the economy.
In the ensuing shouting, Trump accused Biden of supporting “the radical Green New Deal,” which he alleged would cost “$100 trillion.” (For those who are wondering, that number is from a ludicrous “study” of the GND by the right-wing American Action Forum.)
Biden responded, “The Green New Deal is not my plan.”
Then, just a few minutes later, he said, “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward.”
Then, minutes later, “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.” He supports “the Biden plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.”
Minutes later, sleuths on the right turned up language on Biden’s website calling the Green New Deal a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”
The media won’t Fact Check @JoeBiden’s lies.
His website says he supports the Green New Deal. @realDonaldTrump is right. pic.twitter.com/tFkop9FiXU — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 30, 2020
Right-wing media worked furiously to make this a story, trying to start an intra-left feud by saying that Biden was repudiating the radical left.
It doesn’t seem to have worked. Climate activists, like Evan Weber, co-founder and political director of the Sunrise Movement, didn’t take the bait, perhaps because it was a little too obvious what Trump was trying to do.
“The Green New Deal is not a bad deal, but it’s not the plan I have—that’s the ‘Biden Green Deal’”—@JoeBiden
Seems right! Lol
Conversely, the Biden Green Deal is not a bad deal, it’s not the plan we have, but it’s a damn good start. pic.twitter.com/ws7wktkgW1 — Evan Weber (@evanlweber) October 1, 2020
Nonetheless, it’s worth spelling out exactly what’s going on here, because it’s part of a political dynamic that goes back decades — and may finally, at long last, be changing.
Republicans are working furiously to shore up the “environment versus economy” frame
Around the time of Ronald Reagan and the ascendance of movement conservatism, the GOP began lumping environmental policy into the same big bucket as all progressive social or economic policy: pie-in-the-sky dreams that would raise taxes and damage the economy.
Thanks to decades of subsequent repetition — often echoed by defensive Clinton-era Democrats — the “environment vs. economy” frame has become ubiquitous enough to seep out of politics into popular culture. Even people who claim to know very little about politics will have the impression, the feeling, that it’s true.
It was through that basic frame that climate change entered US politics. I’ve argued for years (2010, 2013) that climate is ill-suited to that frame, that calling it “environmental” serves to shrink and distort it in the public mind. But despite my best efforts, that’s how it was discussed for most of the 2000s and 2010s.
Climate advocates beat their heads against the frame for years, talking about “green jobs,” new industries, and competing with China in global markets. Then-Rep. Jay Inslee co-wrote a whole book about the green economy back in 2013.
Thanks in no small part to the youth climate movement and the Green New Deal resolution, formally introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in February 2019, that frame finally seems to be giving way, at least among Democrats, at least on climate change. Within the party, the center of gravity on climate has moved considerably to the left and there is more policy alignment than at any time in recent memory.
As conservative tropes lose their potency outside the bubble, those inside the bubble double and triple down on them. So it is with the Green New Deal.
From the outset, the right has worked frantically to define the GND as the most unrealistic, socialist environmental plan yet. As I wrote last April, in the months following the introduction of the GND, Fox News discussed it more than CNN and MSNBC combined and its viewers evinced the highest awareness of it.
In the same poll, only 1 percent of Fox viewers were undecided about their opinion of the GND; 91 percent opposed it.
The right seized on the GND and defined it in the most lurid terms — it would ban cows and planes, take away everyone’s SUVs, and cost “one-hundred TRILLION dollars.” They no longer have any particular need for sophistication or mainstream credibility outside their echo chamber, so the GND has simply become a trigger for every moldy critique of environmentalism that the right had laying around, in its silliest possible terms. “They want to take out the cows!” Trump said. (Similarly, Joe Biden is going to destroy suburbs, the Second Amendment, the middle class, and God.)
During the vice presidential debate, Vice President Mike Pence brought it up, saying: “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes, bury our economy over a $2 trillion Green New Deal.” Later, he added, “They would impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American energy, would increase the energy costs of American families in their homes and literally would crush American jobs.”
The GND of the right-wing imagination bears virtually no resemblance to the spirit or language of the thing itself. It has become a symbol, a vessel for stale resentments.
The Green New Deal is a symbol on both sides now
Of course, the GND has become a symbol on the left, too. It was never a specific set of policy proposals, and there is, to this day, no “official” GND policy agenda. Numerous nonprofit research and advocacy groups have released their own versions; the Green Party has a version; various international groups and groups in other countries have their own versions.
The GND is not a particular set of policy proposals but an idea: an ambitious effort equal to the challenge of climate change, led by the generation that will suffer most from it, free of the political dogmas and self-imposed restraints of neoliberalism and focused on equity and justice. Different groups and constituencies will fill in policy details based on their individual interests and concerns.
It’s the idea of the GND, the positive symbol, that has remained resilient in the face of concerted right-wing attacks. And it is the idea that Biden cites as his inspiration.
But he cannot, and should not, simply adopt it as his own.
The Green New Deal has given birth to a whole litter of policy proposals
Insofar as the GND has any policy content, it suggests ambitious action in three areas: stringent standards to accelerate decarbonization in key sectors like electricity, buildings, and transportation; large-scale, job-creating public investments in clean energy projects, green infrastructure, and vulnerable communities; and an overall focus on justice, such that the communities most at risk, from either climate change or the clean energy transition, receive the most assistance.
This basic recipe — standards, investments, and justice (SIJ) — is what Biden refers to on his website as a “crucial framework for meeting climate challenges.” It is the framework that inspired, to one degree or another, virtually every climate plan released across the left over the past few years, from nonprofit green and environmental justice groups to union groups to Congress to presidential candidates.
It is the framework that inspired Biden’s beefed-up climate plan. He didn’t take everything from the original GND — he’s not offering a job guarantee or food and housing guarantees — but he put together a credible version of the basic SIJ framework.
Nonetheless, he would rightly be seen as presumptuous and insincere if he simply called his plan the “Green New Deal.” The GND is, and ought to remain, its own thing.
Biden needs to steer between the symbols, toward policy
Biden’s political challenge, in the debates and the race more broadly, is to steer clear of the symbol that the GND has become on both sides.
He needs to avoid getting tangled up with the dark, garish fantasy that Fox News has made of the GND — the one with no hamburgers, the one Trump kept yelling about onstage at the debate. Believe it or not, there are wavering, undecided voters out there who might hold that against him. It feeds the “Biden is controlled by the radical left” narrative being pushed so hard on conservative and social media right now.
He also needs to avoid being seen as appropriating what has become a kind of North Star to climate activists. He needs to be seen charting his own path, not simply accepting what the left has offered. That’s why he calls his plan (or at least did at the debate) the “Biden Green Deal.”
He needs, and climate activists need, for there to be a symbol of ultimate progressive ambition that is too far for him to reach, something that he, as a moderate, can publicly opt against. Activists need room on the left from which to push him when he takes office. And he needs to be seen sanding off the edges and producing a more sensible version of the progressive agenda.
Fact check: Biden says the "Green New Deal is not my plan." His plan borrows heavily from it. https://t.co/WpDAvcRlN5 — NBC News (@NBCNews) September 30, 2020
Biden could pull off a political hat trick on climate
Not many committed lefties wanted Joe Biden as their candidate, but looking back over the race so far, in light of the stability of the polls and Biden’s strength among key swing demographics (like older people), there does seem to be a weird match of the man to the moment. He might be just the guy to put a genial, moderate face on a bold left agenda.
A newly resurgent left is pushing ambitious policies on Biden, from Medicare-for-all to justice system reform to the Green New Deal. He has room to welcome their spirit but to adopt more reasonable versions of his own, and because he is widely seen as a moderate, a party man, it’s plausible to voters.
But the thing is, those “moderate” versions Biden is crafting amount to the most ambitious progressive policy agenda a Democratic presidential candidate has run on in the modern era, far more ambitious than anything Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ever put forward (and far more ambitious than anything Congress is likely to pass). It’s true on health care, race, policing, and infrastructure — and it’s true on climate.
Biden’s climate plan is easily the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate. It would target 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, which is faster than even the most progressive states have pushed. It would invest $2 trillion and channel 40 percent of all federal green spending to vulnerable communities. It would retrofit millions of buildings, ramp up federal research, reorient US foreign policy around climate, beef up EPA enforcement, and on and on.
It’s not the GND, but it’s a really good deal.
To have any hope of doing any of it, Biden needs to get elected, and to do that, he needs to walk a fine line: avoid appearing too closely aligned with the activist left, to avoid spooking swing voters, but remain closely enough aligned to keep the left on his side. That, in a nutshell, is what he was trying to do at the debate, and what Trump was deliberately trying to prevent him from doing.
No one would ever accuse Biden of being rhetorically fleet of foot. And on the debate stage he was up against a torrent of obnoxious, badgering bullshit, which would be difficult for anyone. So his answers on the GND weren’t exactly clear, and they were easy for the right to demagogue.
But the story, such as it was, faded quickly and did not produce the hoped-for intramural fight on the left. As much as it loves intramural fights, even the left isn’t that foolish. Climate activists understand the stakes of this election all too well. It is the most important of their lives. They know that only a decisive Biden victory makes any kind of deal — new, green, Biden, or otherwise — possible.