Hillary Clinton & Hydro-Fracking

[H2O Man]

The article linked to below is from the September-October issue of Mother Jones. It is a story about how the US State Department -- and specifically Hillary Clinton -- used their position to advocate for a $68 million deal for Chevron to be able to hydro-frack in Bulgaria.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

It is this type of thing that causes people like myself -- a registered Democrat, who has voted for the Democratic Party’s candidate in virtually every election since I reached the voting age -- to question if we can in good conscience support Hillary Clinton for president.

The pro-Clinton people, including here on DU:GD, do not seem to want to have an open and honest discussion about this type of issue. Rather, when a DU community member such as myself raises this concern, it tends to be ignored, or marginalized, or the character of the person raising the question is attacked.

Those are the three sticks that many of the pro-Clinton folks swing, in my opinion, in order to either silence or distract from serious discussions of these types of issues. Because I don’t feel (or fear) such sticks, I thought it might be good if I brought this one to the table.

I do so not in an attempt to deny the many good qualities that I recognize Hillary Clinton as having. These include, but are not limited to, her being a strong advocate for women and children, and on LGBT issues. Those are all extremely important, and the fact is that Ms. Clinton has been a long-time, and consistent, leader in these areas. Likewise, I respect her for her role in advocating for affordable health-care for human beings.

Non-issues, ranging from Benghazi to “Clinton Cash” play zero role in my opinion about Ms. Clinton. Indeed, she has been the target of some of the most delusional projections from the decaying minds of the rabid-right for decades. And a huge amount of that, quite obviously, is the direct result of a deeply-rooted fear of and hatred for powerful women that infects our culture.

The issues involved in fracking are distinct from the nonsense. Attempts to portray these concerns as being much the same are, at best, dishonest. Efforts to paint it as a “single issue,” and those who are concerned about it as “purists,” are, at best, uninformed. And the refusal to acknowledge these concerns, and to discuss them openly and honestly, does not speak to the good will of the pro-Clinton members of this community.

There is a disconnect between being an advocate of health care, and being a supporter of the energy corporations’ efforts to capitalize upon “natural resources” in a manner that is extremely destructive to the environment. Fracking poisons the air, soil, and especially water in a manner that poses serious health hazards to human beings and all other living things. As such, it cannot be dismissed as a “single issue” that is of relatively little significance in the “big picture” -- unless, of course, one is willing to accept the lies from corporate “leaders” such as Dick Cheney.

I will be interested in what, if any responses this OP gets from the pro-Clinton people here on the forum. My essay and link are not intended as an attack, either upon them, or on Hillary Clinton. Rather, it is an attempt to communicate the seriousness of many of our concerns regarding Ms. Clinton, and her presidential campaign.

Peace,
H2O Man

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I share your concerns, my dear H20 Man, and I too will be watching.

Any candidate who promotes fracking needs to be closely watched and questioned.

K&R

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you.

Before eventually making the correct decision, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo was "undecided" on if he would allow fracking in our state. I was among those who lobbied against fracking. Andrew often said that both sides "argued based upon emotion,not science." We delivered the science.

I was able to get a message to him, through a family member -- that we knew he was intent upon running for president in 2016, and that I assumed he was planning to appeal primarily to the Cheney-wing of the Democratic Party. I was told that he found that annoying.

For the record: I am not an advocate or supporter for his now "in limbo" desire to run in '16. If nothing else, I appreciate the fact that Ms. Clinton has ended that.

[MBS]

37. me, too n/t

[OKNancy]

2. you have to have a balance

Developing countries need energy. Bulgaria didn't want to be under the thumb of Russia for their gas.
So I suppose the state department and Eastern Europe has to weigh the pros and cons.

That's all the response you will get from me. I'm not going to argue with someone whose mind is made up.

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you

for your response. I appreciate it.

I do not argue about hydro-fracking. And I definitely have made up my mind on it, based upon years of studying it.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. Yes, we need energy...

and we also need a leader who can kick of an alternative energy initiative the way that Kennedy kicked off the space program. Sadly, I don't see ANY one capable of doing such a thing. And if one does come up, the gas and oil companies will be sure to make sure that person doesn't rise.

[sabrina 1]

44. Fracking has now been banned in NY because it IS a threat to the lives of the people who

live here. It is as big a threat to the environment as one can imagine. California is a prefect example. Now in a state of drought that appears to be permanent, fracking sucks up millions of gallons of much needed water there which you have to ask yourself, ARE THEY CRAZY?

We know now for certain, due to SCIENCE that Fracking is the cause of Earthquakes at least of a magnitude of 3 that has been proven, while more research continues based on the belief that even more disastrous Earthquakes are caused by Fracking.

There is no way any responsible Democrat, Republicans as we know are irresponsible, could possibly support the continuation of this destructive for-profit practice.

We have the ability to TOP Russia, China and the entire world by leading the way with Alternative Energy. But we don't have the will to oppose these greedy, life sucking Corporations who appear to control this country.

Saying we have to engage in destructive behavior in order to stop the progress of someone else, makes zero sense.

Hillary is just wrong on this, period, and as a Democrat she should know better.

Cuomo is no progressive Dem, but in the end even he had to acknowledge the science.

[cali]

3. and it wasn't just Bulgaria and Chevron

thanks for this.

[H2O Man]

13. Thank you.

[2banon]

4. HUGE KnR!!

Thank you for posting this really significant bit of information. it's jaw dropping in my view how someone who is so concerned about the "health care" especially for women and children would be a party to this policy.

But when it comes to Hillary, I am always disappointed, but less and less surprised.

I would be interested to read defense of this by her supporters. Just to gain some level of understanding how they rationalize and accept this from their candidate of choice. Cuz, I just don't get it.

On another note:

It is rather unfortunate that one must qualify their remarks to the degree which you have done, here on DU, to ensure comments are not misconstrued as an "attack". I will not elaborate further on that point, but I want to acknowledge your efforts in that respect are above and beyond the call of duty.

Kick and recommend!

[H2O Man]

17. Thanks!

I like the majority of the pro-Clinton folks here, and respect their opinions. I appreciate reading the thoughtful, pro-Hillary OP/threads, and never hesitate to "recommend" them.

I've stated numerous times that I am "undecided" in terms of the primaries. Obviously, I would never consider voting for a republican for president. If I should decide to vote for a third-party candidate, then of course I wouldn't post that on this forum. However, if Ms. Clinton should earn my vote -- hardly important, as I live in NYS -- then I will write lots of OPs, explaining why I support her, and why I think others should, too.

As I've also stated, I believe that some Clinton supporters -- in real life and on DU -- are so obnoxious, that they lessen the chances of "undecided" voters picking her, much less the currently anti-Clinton folks changing their minds.

We should be having numerous serious discussions on her candidacy.

[bigtree]

5. she undeniably promoted 'fracking'

...in the Obama administration's promotion of natural gas.

In fact, I believe it's a mistake to isolate the State Dept. efforts from President Obama's own public (and political) embrace of natural gas here at home and as part of the nation's global relationships, as outlined in the article. The president's 'all of the above' energy policy, highlighted in his 2014 SOTU, emphasized his embrace of natural gas as a way to make the U.S. 'less dependent' on foreign sources of gas and oil, and his determination that natural gas development and production (which the U.S. leads in) has less of a carbon footprint than drilling for oil. One of his most questionable assertions was that natural gas can be extracted 'safely' and 'sustainably.'

from The Hill:

"The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades," Obama said during his fifth State of the Union speech... "One of the reasons why is natural gas, if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change," Obama said.

In a fact sheet accompanying the speech, the White House called on Congress to establish "sustainable shale gas growth zones."

"My administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and job growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, and our communities," Obama said.

Obama added he would work with Congress to create jobs by building fueling stations, as the administration plans to propose new incentives for medium and heavy-duty trucks to run on natural gas, or other alternative fuels.

This approach of billing 'fracking' for natural gas as a safe and environmentally responsible alternative, along with the carrot of support for more rational and reasonably sustainable alternatives like solar and wind energy, has been a shell game which has obscured destructively powerful industry efforts to capitalize on his support and double down on their current practices which are undenably damaging to the environment and have, so far, failed in every way to ensure that natural gas can be extracted 'safely' as president Obama has insisted is his aim and intention.

Of course, that brings us to Hillary Clinton's independent view of the practice. While it's undeniable that she's embraced the same rationale for fracking as the President, there still is some room in this campaign to confront her on this issue and force a definitive viewpoint from her on where her administration would stand on this important and critical issue; both in our domestic production which is undeniably entrenched and enmeshed in our nation's energy policy, and in our foreign policy, as well.

It's almost a certainty that Hillary Clinton would not risk alienating the massive industry which the Obama administration has enabled, defended, and relied on to continue and advance what they view, even today, as a major lever and tool in their energy arsenal. It's that reality which compels those who believe in a future independent from these destructive and indifferent interests to seek a candidate who will make a clear break from this dubious and misleading policy of promoting the extraction of natural gas as a 'clean' and 'safe' energy choice.

Hillary Clinton should assuredly be challenged on where she stands, without equivocation or without hiding behind these notions her former boss promoted that fracking for natural gas is an environmentally responsible choice.

[H2O Man]

18. I like people who

can demonstrate that they have learned from past mistakes.

For example, if a Senator voted, say, to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq, as much as I dislike that vote, I'd be willing to consider this: "I made a terrible mistake. Though I realized President Bush was a goof, I believed that VP Cheney was intelligent enough, that I wrongly trusted him to be honest about threats to our nation."

With fracking, one would have to believe that Cheney and his ilk could be trusted. That it really doesn't pose an environmental health risk. And that VP Cheney worked to exempt fracking from the Clean Water Act and other important environmental safe guards for the public's good. Now, that would require the person to be brain-dead, would it not?

[bigtree]

42. I really don't believe it will happen

...but there's certainly room for Hillary to disavow all of the Obama team's assertions that fracking can be done without devastating environmental consequences. Even at that, it's impossible to believe she'd go back to those same industry moguls she favored like royalty on behalf of her former boss and de-knight them.

What I'd like to see is an open debate on the concerns she and the President expressed about fracking.We know nothing's been changed about the practices to allow anyone to credibly declare them environmentally safe. What we need now is a public accounting of those claims.

[FlatBaroque]

6. Far left hater

just kidding

[H2O Man]

19. The first two words

are accurate, I suppose!

[FlatBaroque]

20. Yes they are Mr. Waterman

yes indeed they are

[DesertDiamond]

7. You're a Hillary basher! A Hillary basher! And apparently so am I.

[H2O Man]

21. Well, I think some

of our friends here think so!

[zeemike]

8. It is easy to be for things like gay rights and women's issues

That do not have any effect on the bottom line of giant corporations.
But I am not looking for someone who takes the easy issues on and ignores the hard ones.
That is the true test of whether we have a champion for the average person or not.

[H2O Man]

22. Yet they have

a huge impact upon the quality of "average people's" lives. More, I don't believe that it has always been easy to advocate for gay rights/women's issues. It is becoming easier, though there is still an unacceptable resistance to things such as marriage equality. So I think that those are extremely important issues, and I'd never even consider supporting any candidate -- at any level -- that wasn't strong in those areas.

However, they aren't as rare among Democrats as they once were. And they overlap with other extremely important issues. I prefer to take a holistic approach. And that definitely requires a candidate to put people way above corporations. Too many politicians, including from our party, give lip service to that human value, but their actions prove otherwise. And that is a subject that should be discussed -- in association with Ms. Clinton -- in great depth.

[zeemike]

34. And when it was not easy they did not do it.

But evolved as it became easier.
The hard ones now are the economic ones and they have not yet evolved on them because they need the money, and the money trumps people.
I want both not just one. because both are important to all people.

[H2O Man]

35. I agree.

Valid points. Very important.

[dsc]

40. It was not easy to advocate for gay rights back in 92

and frankly only a straight person could ever believe the non sense that it was.

[malaise]

10. I'm interested too

[H2O Man]

23. Thanks!

It might be interesting.

[William769]

11. As Secretary of State, she answer's to the President and does his bidding.

Just saying.

[H2O Man]

24. No 3rd term then!

[LiberalAndProud]

14. On the issues, Hillary and I agree on very few.

Which leaves me feeling under-represented, overall.

[H2O Man]

25. Thank you.

I believe that what you said describes how a lot of people feel.

[cantbeserious]

16. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC

[H2O Man]

27. Thank you.

[Cryptoad]

29. If you think HRC is Oligarchy Ready

wait til you see the GOP in FULL CONTROL .....!

[cantbeserious]

36. Oligarchy Remains Oligarchy

eom

[Cryptoad]

39. True,,,

but there are varying degrees.....

[cantbeserious]

45. To The 99% - It Matters Not How Gentle The Screw Is - Screwed Is Screwed

eom

[workinclasszero]

54. Yup just cherry pick a few issues

And throw gays, women, hell an entire generation once president Cruz packs the SCOTUS with hardcore right wing judges, under the bus.

And I'm sure a republican controlled white house, congress and SCOTUS will be way better on all environmental issues than Hillary, right?

[Cryptoad]

26. Many think if they attack HRC enough

that ultra Progressive GOP will move in and shut down fracking.....I havent figured out yet where they got that notion!

[H2O Man]

28. Odd.

Never heard that one before.

[Cryptoad]

30. You mean you havent noticed

all those that keep attacking the most Progressive candidate in the race for not being progressive enough?

[H2O Man]

32. No.

I was responding to the claim that you made.

[leftofcool]

31. I am concerned about fracking myself

I understand the need for other countries to decide for themselves on this issue. I also understand the need for the US to gain more energy independence. As a Hillary supporter, I am going to press on this issue

[H2O Man]

33. Thank you!

Much appreciated.

[G_j]

41. bravo

I hope you have company in that! It is a crucial issue.

[corkhead]

38. inevitablity 2007 redux

She is destined to be the nominee so you might as well fall in line now

Another sound, reasoned OP sir, I expect no less. Thanks for sharing.

[H2O Man]

48. Thank you.

[hootinholler]

43. I seriously doubt that she would publicly take a position on fracking

I have yet to see her take a hard stand on any issue that hasn't already resolved itself in public opinion.

As I'm sure you know, questions dodged reveal as much and sometimes more than questions answered.

[lonestarnot]

46. Until I see it come out of her mouth for myself I am with you. Silence is a bit of a

revelation.

[H2O Man]

49. If there is no

opposition in the primary -- or if opposition is limited to a moderate-conservative Democrat -- it won't come up as an issue. And it is unlikely to be a real issue in the general election. That's a shame, because it is a very important issue to so many grass roots people. And it would be impossible for people like me to ask the environmental community -- with a straight face -- to support any candidate who is not sound on environmental issues.

[tk2kewl]

47. a well reasoned and thoughtful post as always H2O Man

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (2)

...my 2 favorite pro HRC tactics lately are 1. Any criticism is viewed as "vicious", and 2. "Where's your candidate?"

As for 2, I hope he makes it official soon.

[H2O Man]

50. Thank you.

A close third, from this issue, might be that she advocated for fracking because it was the President's agenda. That would seem to ignore the Clinton Foundation's ties with the energy corporations that capitalize on the fracking deals she advocated for.

[antigop]

52. she was "just following orders". nt

[tk2kewl]

53. I like the connection you made back to health care...

One of the biggest failings (or snow jobs) of the democratic policy over the past few decades has been the support for certain social issues (LGBT, health care, women's rights...) without the inseparable support for economic and environmental justice - life and politics are all part of an interconnected web, and picking and choosing liberal/progressive issues from a Chinese menu to gain votes works to flatten "the arc of the moral universe," I think.

[myrna minx]

51. Thank you for your thoughtful post. My heart is heavy - between "free trade" and fracking

- I almost don't recognize my party anymore.

[H2O Man]

55. Thank you.

I recognize it, but not as the Democratic Party that I identify with. Rather, I am reminded of things that I was told could happen, when I was young and listened to the Elders. I hesitate to talk about these things on this forum, but I have a story that might work.

Many years ago, I was working with Chief Waterman, to protect Sacred Ground. The state had ordered some local communities to "cap" a toxic industrial waste dump, with a layer of clay, to be covered with several feet of gravel. The combination of local politicians, their families, and the construction industry identified a local "knoll" as a source of gravel.

The local history and archaeological record -- including burials found 20 years before, in a different construction project -- documented the historical and human value of this burial mound. Area citizens supported the Haudenosaunee effort to preserve it. NYS officials in two departments attempted to help us, but were consistently over-ruled, and some felt their jobs were threatened. The first two archaeological surveys the company paid for supported our side; the company finally paid a third one to support them.

The case ended up in NYS Supreme Court. The machine won. Shocking, I know.

That machine is what I recognize.

[myrna minx]

58. That is heartbreaking, but unfortunately not surprising. Did this happen

prior to the passing of NAGPRA?

I'm so grateful for your essays. Whenever I feel downtrodden, your essays always remind me of the greater fight and to keep going.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

56. so which Republican do you intend to "support" at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?

It is this type of thing that causes people like myself -- a registered Democrat, who has voted for the Democratic Party’s candidate in virtually every election since I reached the voting age -- to question if we can in good conscience support Hillary Clinton for president.
Do you plan to vote for Republicans in the future?

[H2O Man]

57. Please.

If you have a serious question/comment, that's fine. But why on earth would you want to rely on the type of rhetorical question that wouldn't cut the mustard in an 8th grade debating class?

[NYC_SKP]

59. K/R and a couple thoughts about this matter.

In no particular order:

Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Don't I wish that would happen here, that the government would listen to the people and act accordingly?
In this instance, it looks very much as though SOS imported to Bulgaria "our" (or her) brand of governance: do what works for the bottom line, short term, and your friends in the industry.

Secretary Clinton: "Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role." Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was "to elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy."

On the surface, at least, it appears that Secretary Clinton was acting as a proxy for the industry and for one particular global corporation to help them grow their empire, by "encouraging" governments to disregard the wishes of the citizens.
If the sincere goal here was energy independence, she could have dispatched experts in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable generation, education, and even how to start small gas extraction operations, owned and operated by Bulgarians/Romanians.

That's not what she was doing, clearly.

Apologies that I'm responding not as a pro-Clinton person but as an advocate for the environment who has, as part of his career, extensive experience with the topic of energy and with several industry and government players.

When pro-business and pro-environment issues collide, I come down on the side of the environment.

And when I see our elected representatives try to spread what I think is terrible, vile, policy, I get a little hot under the collar.