On Fracking....

[berniepdx420]

[morningfog]

1. This could be repeated on dozens of issues. She is not a leader.

She is an equivocator.

[Armstead]

8. Same shit as bank regulation

[uponit7771]

2. Hillary Clinton, practical and not dogmatic or consummate just angry about everything....

... that's not a way to get shit done.

[berniepdx420]

4. Do you know anything about Fracking... why don't we do just a little bit of fracking up river from

you...

[Armstead]

9. You have to want to get shit done -- Clinton doesn't want to get much done

[CrowCityDem]

3. Exactly. Not everything is one size fits all.

[berniepdx420]

5. No but one fracking site could kill or disable you or someone you love

[rhett o rick]

7. LOL. She said nothing. As always. Just rhetorical bullshit. She has always supported unregulated

fracking until this election. Now she blathers about this and that, careful not to piss off her big oil friends.

She cares zip about the little people and apparently her fans agree. Frack for profits and the hell with the drinking water for the peons.

[Armstead]

11. Some things are -- Fracking is bad for the environment

[CrowCityDem]

12. It can be, yes.

But there's a related issue. If we outright ban fracking, and we reduce or eliminate nuclear power, as Bernie is suggesting; what happens then? We don't have the capacity to switch over to all renewables, so do we wind up burning more coal to make up the difference? Or does our reduction in natural gas use lead to a rise in energy prices, which would once again hurt the middle class?

That's why I keep saying these issues are complicated. One word answers sound good, but they don't account for the ramifications.

[Armstead]

13. Yes we have to make transitions That is not the question.

The question is how determined we are to make those transitions, what forms they take...etc. And priorities -- economic gain or the survival of the human race and habitability of the planet.

And we do have to draw lines based on preventing preventable disasters instead of contributing to them to placate big industries.

In the case of nuclear power...ASAP without shutting off the lights. A simple answer -- look at what happened in japan. Imagine something similar (I realize no tsunamis, but similar disaster) to nukes in major population centers like NY...and what that would do to millions of people and the environment permanently.

In the case of fracking it is a slow-motion disaster, if we keep making the earth more unstable, and pumping poisons into the ground water.....Do we want to promote that slow motion disaster, as Clkinton has supoported -- or do we amp up renewables,. better mileage cars, mass transit...etc.

[CrowCityDem]

14. That doesn't answer the question:

Where do we get enough energy to meet our needs? And how much more will we have to pay for it?

If we have to go back to burning coal and importing oil, are we achieving anything worthwhile? Coal is worse for the environment than burning gas, and I can't imagine anyone wants to return to sending out money into the hands of governments that condone terrorism against us.

So again, while it's easy to say "no" to fracking, the reality is more complex. I have yet to hear Bernie talk about how to replace that energy in the short-term, without driving up costs.

[Armstead]

16. The solutions are complex and there are many variations

These issues are complex, I agree. And I'm sure both Clinton and Sanders have similar long term basic goals.

If Bernie were elected, any proposal would be subject to much study, debate...etc. just as hers would be. We're not going to become a 100 percent solar and wind economy tomorrow, regardless of who wins.

But there are some bottom lines. Look at the effects of fracking, and the cost/benefit analysis. Is poisoned groundwater something we want to continue? Is geological instability worth the long (and perhaps short) term effects? is the possibility of a new nuke disaster something we want to rely on?

But to be honest, it boils down to trust. I trust Sanders that priorities will be survival over the embedded interests of the energy industry more than I trust Clinton.

Your mileage may vary.

[CrowCityDem]

17. I trust the person with a nuanced answer has actually thought about it.

[A Little Weird]

6. There is no safe way to do fracking

No democrat should be supporting this travesty.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, berniepdx420.

[polly7]

15. Josh Fox has a good video on this.

Bernie and Hillary and Fracking:

https://vimeo.com/157982054


*********************************************************************

(and how she didn't appear to consider much at all those 'conditions' peddling it to other nations)


How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake | September/October 2014 Issue

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. 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.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

Hillary Clinton is welcomed to Sofia by Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Nikolay Mladenov, left. US Department of State/flickr

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy.

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

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world