2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFracking: yea or nay?
I've worked in the oil fields and seen the ridiculous pollution and disregard for the environment.
I'm voting for Sanders, firmly against fracking.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)the possibility in unpopulated areas if there is a significant energy crisis in the future. Would much rather see the development of clean energy.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)One needn't work it much to see Freudian implications in this attack on the earth mother.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One possible answer is:
* Fracking in the United States where it endangers the health of our citizens -- Nay.
* Fracking in other countries where it helps the profits of U.S. corporations -- Yea.
I personally don't support this answer, but, given how the Department of State under Hillary Clinton was pushing fracking abroad, it's an intermediate position that should be noted, for the sake of completeness.
Response to Jim Lane (Reply #5)
Else You Are Mad This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Its a disaster for the environment.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)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. Snip.
Cont: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)I've seen what it has done in Dimock, PA that's just south of me.
Agony
(2,605 posts)Took them 7 years to get relief.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-fracking-idUSKCN0WC2I8
A federal jury ruled on Thursday that Cabot Oil & Gas Co must pay more than $4.2 million in damages to two families in northeastern Pennsylvania who said the company's fracking operations contaminated their ground water.
Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)By organized Pro-fracking groups based in NY like the JLCNY. It really got ugly.
artislife
(9,497 posts)SDJay
(1,089 posts)And as far as the argument that perhaps we could do it in limited volume in places where there aren't many people, I say screw that as well. I really think that the only way we're going to start producing energy the right way is if we are absolutely forced to do it. As long as there is some shortcut, some resource that can be exploited there will be some pig corporation willing to go get it and sell it. You know, because freedumb and the FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
Fracking is just another one of those easier options that is actually horrible for the planet.
Agony
(2,605 posts)Doesn't matter how "safe" you try and make it Hillary.
Still a Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas
14 Apr 2015
R. Howarth, T. Ingraffea
On the 4th anniversary of their seminal paper with Renee Santoro, "Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations", Profs. Bob Howarth and Tony Ingraffea present a retrospective on the new science that has ensued, the resulting proposed policy and regulatory changes, and the ongoing socio-political "discourse" on this topic. They will show videos of ongoing venting and leakage of methane from various sources and discuss the continuing impact of methane emissions on both air quality and climate change.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Because water is life.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)There's money in fracking. To hell with the Earth, to hell with future generations, there's money to be made!
And remember, climate change is GOOD for Greenland's potato farmers !
FEEL THE BERN - 2016
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We have to end our dependence on fossil fuels. We have to leave it in the ground.
The Old Lie
(123 posts)Shrillary loves her some fracking dollars too.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)This isn't the first time a bad idea got a lot of mileage- look at leaded gasoline. We need to stop with the dirty energy now.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Bernie Sanders correctly says that there is no such thing as safe fracking.
Jackilope
(819 posts)TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
Dem2
(8,168 posts)such that I was like "no way, it's not worth the risk", but it's OK to go deeper and under the water table to frack?
They're lying motherf******, that's why.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)BTTT just so a Hillarian can weigh in....
Joob
(1,065 posts)And in US
Matt_R
(456 posts)gabeana
(3,166 posts)have responded, why is that
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)Edit: Note this is my writing.
natural recovery in a human-scale amount of time.
Projects are permitted under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and as such require a Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement, with a Categorical Exclusion requiring the least study and mitigation and Environmental Impact Statement the most.
The shales that are fracked may lie under public or private lands, however, the federal government retains mineral rights to shales underlying most private lands and can put private tracts up for sale regardless of surface ownership and use.
Fracking projects are being approved under Categorical Exclusions, the weakest NEPA document and study. This is a bad faith application of NEPA but policies are implemented to avoid documenting the environmental impacts. Some fracking projects are approved without NEPA.
At the link is a pdf document by the Congressional Research Service about fracking in general and several specific projects where federal and state agencies and promoters argued that NEPA did not apply. This claim is ludicrous. I cannot copy from the pdf to DU.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42502.pdf