Hillary and Fracking

[UglyGreed]

Hillary Clinton: Natural Gas Plays “A Critical Role in Reducing CO2 and Other Pollutants”

“Hillary Clinton is committed to making America the world’s clean energy superpower and meeting the climate change challenge. Domestically produced natural gas can play an important role in the transition to a clean energy economy, creating good paying jobs and careers, lowering energy costs for American families and businesses, and reducing air pollution that disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color.” (emphasis added)

“I don’t support a moratorium,” she said. “I think the responsible production and use of the Marcellus Shale gas is actually part of the secret sauce as to how we will create jobs and how we will compete and win.”

http://energyindepth.org/national/hillary-clinton-natural-gas-plays-a-critical-role-in-reducing-co2-and-other-pollutants/

[virtualobserver]

1. and we get to drink her "secret sauce"

[UglyGreed]

2. Hypocrite or vote

seeker??? HMMMM I don't know which it is.......

[In_The_Wind]

3. Don't Frack My Mother

[UglyGreed]

4. What's a little fracking

here or there???



As federal policy makers decide on rules for fracking on public lands, a new report calculates the toll of this dirty drilling on our environment, including 280 billion gallons of toxic wastewater generated by fracking in 2012—enough to flood all of Washington, DC, in a 22-foot deep toxic lagoon. The Environment America Research & Policy Center report, Fracking by the Numbers, is the first to measure the damaging footprint of fracking to date.

“The numbers don’t lie—fracking has taken a dirty and destructive toll on our environment,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America. “If this dirty drilling continues unchecked, these numbers will only get worse.”


http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/03/report-calculates-damage-by-fracking/

[99th_Monkey]

5. The list goes on and on. Progressive policies NOT supported by Hillary ..

Break up big banks?
NO we can't.

Refusing donations from BIG corporate donors?
NOPE, but trust me anyway.

Single Payer Healthcare for all?
Forget it. NOT going to happen.

$15 Min. Wage?
NADA. You'll need to get-by on $12, if your lucky,

How about free college tuition?
HaHaHa! NOT on your life.

Well, then surely you're against FRACKING, right?
Actually, not so much.

[UglyGreed]

6. Yet those who support Bernie are

Tea Partiers and right wing hacks......

[99th_Monkey]

8. Don't forget "Libertarian Leaners"

Because . . well.. Glen Greenwald .. or something like that.

[UglyGreed]

9. Oops my bad

thanks for that correction. Maybe you could get a job at Correct the Record

[99th_Monkey]

10. Actually, not a bad idea .. since I'm supposedly such a "RW Libertarian"

I should be a slam-dunk.

[UglyGreed]

12. Hang around here a bit

longer perhaps some that "New Democrat feeling" will rub off onto you. I feel no one is ever a lost cause, wait that is very liberal and progressive of me isn't it??? Oh and I forgot about my position on pollution, corporate greed, the military present across the globe....man I am sure confused

[UglyGreed]

7. Would Hillary let her Grandchild

drink this????

[jillan]

15. Can you imagine? That is just disgusting - here in the United States! What have we become?

[grntuscarora]

11. Since she's been recently spotted trolling for $$ from the fracking industry,

this news doesn't surprise me.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/28/1472001/-Hillary-raised-big-funds-last-night-from-Franklin-Sq-Capitol-which-has-huge-investment-in-Fracking

This is a hot button issue for me, and if she's the nominee, it will be excruciating painful to cast my Dem vote in November.

[IMG][/IMG]

[UglyGreed]

13. Who me???

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, UglyGreed.

[CentralMass]

16. It would appear as is the for sale sign is out and there are a lot of takers.

[grntuscarora]

17. kick.

[UglyGreed]

18. BTW I see no defense

yet...........

[grntuscarora]

19. I noticed that, too.

just the sound of crickets...

[UglyGreed]

20. Busy with bigger and better things

I presume

[grntuscarora]

21. Kick.

[IMG][/IMG]

[grntuscarora]

22. Still waiting for an explanation or justification.

I'm sure this makes perfect sense to HRC's supporters. As a Marcellus Shale resident in a state paying the price of this "secret sauce", I'd like it explained to me.

[UglyGreed]

24. I'm so sorry to hear that

I don't know what else to say except I'm truly sorry for the problems this greed has caused you and yours.

[grntuscarora]

23. kick

[UglyGreed]

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

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.

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

[grntuscarora]

27. Thanks for posting this.

And here's my link in return:
http://grist.org/article/bernie-sanders-is-the-only-presidential-candidate-to-oppose-fracking/

[UglyGreed]

28. No problem

[Octafish]

26. When gas prices went down, so did neocon interest in Ukraine.

All we are saying...is give frack a chance...

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
MotherJones, September/October 2014

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.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.

Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. "This is a moment of profound change," she later told a crowd at Georgetown University. "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."

CONTINUED...

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

All we are saying...is give frack a chance...

[UglyGreed]

29. Money over

people, same old story same old results...

[AzDar]

30. Again, I ask... How can *anyone* support her?

[amborin]

38. +10000

[Agony]

31. Natural Gas is NOT better at reducing greenhouse gasses than coal or oil

In the context of Climate Change Frack Gas is a bridge to NOWHERE.
This is separate from the issue of other types of air pollution from coal.

A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the
greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas
Robert W. Howarth
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Keywords
Greenhouse gas footprint, methane
emissions, natural gas, shale gas
Correspondence
Robert W. Howarth, Department of Ecology
& Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853. Tel: [phone];
E-mail: [e-mail]
Funding Information
Funding was provided by Cornell University,
the Park Foundation, and the Wallace Global
Fund.
Received: 4 March 2014; Revised: 18 April
2014; Accepted: 22 April 2014
Energy Science and Engineering 2014;
2(2): 47–60
doi: 10.1002/ese3.35
Abstract
In April 2011, we published the first peer-reviewed analysis of the greenhouse
gas footprint (GHG) of shale gas, concluding that the climate impact of shale
gas may be worse than that of other fossil fuels such as coal and oil because of
methane emissions. We noted the poor quality of publicly available data to support
our analysis and called for further research. Our paper spurred a large
increase in research and analysis, including several new studies that have better
measured methane emissions from natural gas systems. Here, I review this new
research in the context of our 2011 paper and the fifth assessment from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in 2013. The best data
available now indicate that our estimates of methane emission from both shale
gas and conventional natural gas were relatively robust. Using these new, best
available data and a 20-year time period for comparing the warming potential
of methane to carbon dioxide, the conclusion stands that both shale gas and
conventional natural gas have a larger GHG than do coal or oil, for any possible
use of natural gas and particularly for the primary uses of residential and
commercial heating. The 20-year time period is appropriate because of the
urgent need to reduce methane emissions over the coming 15–35 years.


Here is a talk by Haworth in 2015 if anyone is interested.

EID is a Fossil Fuel Industry supported blog, no surprise that they would push HRC's position on this even though they are Right Wing Nut Jobs.

[grntuscarora]

32. I guess the HRC handlers haven't put out the talking points on fracking, yet.

and if I get deleted for this one, I'll go down cheerfully.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

33. I know someone in Oklahoma who blames fracking for earthquakes in his area.

Is it true? Most likely. I think a whole lot more research needs to be done before fracking should be pushed so fervently.

It's one of the things I truly can't stand about Clinton. She sells out people for profits. I do not intend to ever vote for that woman. It gets me angry just thinking about it. Bleh.

Anyway, the fact that she has been trying to sell fracking to the world... I'd suggest following the money.

Why the DNC thought it'd be such an excellent idea to have her run virtually unopposed is beyond me. I'm keeping the faith that this isn't the new democratic party, but if it is.... damn.

[grntuscarora]

34. +1.

altho if she's the nominee, I'm going to be in a tough spot. The R's are even more hideous when it comes to the environment.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

35. I hear you. It might just be bluster in a moment of anger.

The two party system which is able to shut out other viable ideas has flaws though. These flaws are magnified when money comes into the fold and special interests pay to play.

I'd rather our democracy actually functioned as one. As it stands, there's no viable outlet for minor parties to spread their message. If you're not part of the two party monopoly you're not getting air time (unless you have money, a la Trump, Perot, etc.)

It's AMAZING what Sanders has been able to do as an independent/Socialist/Democratic Socialist/Late registrant to the Democratic party. People hear what he says and it resonates. Had he not played the game and changed his official political party designation his message would have never had an outlet, and that would have been a damn shame. Even more hilarious, people aren't attacking his views nearly as much as the 'socialist' label he's aligned himself with. How silly. Views matter more than a title.

Anyway, rant over. Have a wonderful day.

[grntuscarora]

36. I liked your rant!

and i agree with it!

[UglyGreed]

37. kick