Hillary Clinton: Arctic Drilling 'Not Worth the Risk'
Source: nbcnews.com
Aug 18 2015, 11:29 am ET
Hillary Clinton: Arctic Drilling 'Not Worth the Risk'
by Carrie Dann
In a break with the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean is "not worth the risk."
In a tweet, Clinton said:
Hillary ClintonVerified account
?@HillaryClinton
The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling. -H
On Monday, the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell approval to resume drilling off the coast of Alaska for the first time since 2012.
Earlier this summer, Clinton told NH1.com that she was "skeptical" about Arctic drilling, saying " I don't think it is a necessary part of our overall clean-energy climate-change agenda."
In a tweet later Tuesday morning, Jeb Bush responded, calling Clinton's position "extreme." ......
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-arctic-drilling-not-worth-risk-n411761?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=09f282ab5b3b1a8ae22738656a1374d7
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Good for her.
Obama is way off on this, which is surprising.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)By Bernie whom I love...but its all in my mind about our country being completely taken over by
a group of Fascist Clowns.. Imagine... the House, Senate. White House, Supreme Court being controlled by such insanity.. Scary as hell.. I dont want to take chances... I think Hillary has the better chance...
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I'm not a big fan of Hillary (don't trust her), but she is right on this one.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)When I think she is wrong, I say so. And when she is correct, I tip my hat. And my hat is tipping strongly now.
lark
(23,097 posts)I'm glad she's showing a green side, this is encouraging.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)First she wouldn't say, then she had 'doubts', and now she's against it.
so good on her, if she keeps her promise.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)privatization of the Mexican oil and gas company, PEMEX. That was done to enable the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the taking of part of the profit for Wall Street investors.
Bill Clinton was in the White House for eight years, eight years now lost to the effort to save our earth, our environment. The Clintons did far too little during those years on environmental issues. Gore emerged strong on these issues after the Clinton White House.
Did the Clintons put the solar panels back on the White House?
No. Although it would have cost them little to do it.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/tp/History-of-White-House-Solar-Panels.htm
Had the Clintons put them back on, I would believe that Hillary has her heart in the right place on the environment. It would have been a small, inexpensive gesture of support for environmental issues., a signal to environmentalists. But no, the Clintons had more important things to do.
At best, on the environment, Hillary is a follower, not a leader.
We need someone who dares to buck the trend, someone who is not afraid to call out loud and clear and persistently those who would destroy our environment, someone who votes against the mob.
That someone is Bernie, not Hillary, not easy-way-out Hilary.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and have from day-one. I don't really care all that much what Hillary
'promises' of late, because her promises will mostly get tossed out the WH
window, the minute she's installed herself. I know that. Reminds me of
this meme that was on another string, kind of says it all.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Call me pleasantly surprised.
riversedge
(70,204 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Taking a position after something is done is pretty easy.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/leahy-sanders-voice-opposition-to-oil-drilling-in-arctic-ocean
The letter, initiated by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), was sent just as a state of emergency was declared in California and shortly after the fifth anniversary of the devastating Gulf Oil Spill. The administration recently gave conditional approval to plans by the Shell Oil Company to drill in the Chukchi Sea region of the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska. Opening development on a new fossil fuel reservoir in the Arctic not only puts the natural resources, ecosystems and the dependent communities at risk, it also contradicts the Presidents Climate Action Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change. It is an unacceptable and irresponsible decision, the senators said in their letter.
Leahy and Sanders have often applauded President Obamas actions to mitigate climate change and to minimize the use of the dirtiest fossil fuels, including the Presidents decision earlier this year to veto legislation that would have approved the Keystone XL pipeline, and last years issuance of clean power plant rules limiting carbon emissions. But they see the Arctic drilling decision as being ecologically dangerous.
...
GrainOfSands
(5 posts)Sanders has a flair for being right, when others tie themselves up in knots to avoid the truth of their past inaccuracies. He's one of the most consistent in politics. And he's right on this Arctic Drilling. Obama has let us down once again in favor of corporations. Hillary is slow to come around, as usual. I just don't trust her at all. She's part of the 1%, and seems to just pay lip service when it's called for, but how she acts on these issues is another thing, and usually favors the elite/corporate position.
That's why we need Bernie and a Democratic (NO DINOs) controlled congress. Get the GOP and the DINOs out of there. All we have to do is unite and VOTE!
Together, we can win this!
retrowire
(10,345 posts)but yeah. Bernie did it first.
Still though, good choice Hillary. it's much safer to lean over to a classmate and take their answers first isn't it?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I'll answer my own question: .. not so much.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)only he was replying to my positive comment about Hillary's
"evolved" position on Arctic Drilling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1180898
Glad to hear you haven't defected ..
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Could be a drinking game.
"I agree with Bernie"--take a drink
"Bernie is right on this"--take a drink
"Bernie and I agree on this"--take two drinks
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Should she get into office, like anyone else that has been or will be in that office, she'll soften that stance just a little bit.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)How convenient the timing of this - AFTER they get the go-ahead. We'll hear about how bad the TPP is - once it's in place.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)You say she's not progressive enough and than when she takes a progressive position you say she's only doing it for votes.And you think Sanders isn't doing it for votes.All these candidates on both sides are saying shit for votes.There professional politicians that's what they all do pander for votes.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)nature. We hate it when she is wrong on policy for so long only to come to the right side when the polls permit it. We hate that we lead her to the right position rather than her leading the people.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie is.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Like I said, anyone getting into that office will drill in the arctic. We're human beings. We explore, we find stuff, and then we use what we find in all sorts of different ways. We have needs and wants that we don't even know we have.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)We multiply like rats and destroy everything we touch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11129163/Half-of-worlds-animals-have-disappeared-since-1970.html
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)We don't like limits. Well we don't like limits that we don't agree with at least.
We have 4 options:
1) more people doing more
2) more people doing less
3) fewer people doing more
4) fewer people doing less
Since we still physically have more people on the planet each year, that limits the options. The developed world has a declining birth rate only because more people have gotten access to more resources. So we really only have 3 options, as #4 most likely isn't going to be what we would call a functioning mass society. The one common denominator in the first three options is more.
We're not good at making difficult decisions, because we can't agree on who gets to play God, so our solution is to grow the pie. That leads to things like half of the world's non-human animals disappearing since 1970. We don't, or possibly can't, accept that we can't have everything we want. If it is a finite planet, and if we do want more for ourselves, then other forms of life have to go. Not only do we want more, but we've come to have an expectation of more.
So we want everything. We want to power a global civilization where every human being has all they could ever need to realize their full potential, and save the polar bears. We might be able to keep a few in a zoo, but that's about it.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)the more 'progressive' she sounds now, the more she'll back-track once-elected, to keep
her Corporate/Wall St. benefactors fat & happy.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)As Sec of State she allowed TransCanada lobbyists to write the XL Keystone Pipeline environmental assessment. She also worked to export frac'ing technology and services.
The US Military is the largest contributor to Global Warming and Hillary is their gal.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)Considering big oil is unable to clean up their mess from the ocean floor in southern waters, I don't know what they think they'll do when the mess in beneath ice. Obama needs his head examined on this one. It makes no sense.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)the push from the left seems to be working
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Good stuff.
Sanders pulling Clinton to the left so that when she is President Clinton2 good thing will continue to happen is a good thing.
As Obama said, time and politics is a river - time for another competent Captain to continue to steer the ship in the same direction.
djean111
(14,255 posts)changing her campaign rhetoric. This is that "believability" thing.
If Hillary is that captain - the ship is sailing straight into corporate and wartime waters. That's my feeling, that is my opinion, and that is what I will base my vote on. Not pundits, not posts by partisans on the internet. Done deal.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Still, not bad given the choppy seas and obstacles he had to sail around, who can deny that?
djean111
(14,255 posts)of the candidates. I don't even know why anyone cares about Obama's approval ratings at this point. Maybe Hillary does, so she can figure out what to be for and what to be against.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Not a good look, and not an effective one at all. Kind of cheap, really. Anyway, it does not matter any more what people think about what Obama does. He is free to do what he wants. And I doubt he needs contributions for the inevitable library thingy.
He is not running again. He has no coattails. He does not really care what people think, IMO. You do the math. Take your time. Try and get the concept that he is not running again. And what people think of his "presidenting" does not matter.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The usual from you, of course. Over and out. It is not like one word, or a million words, from you will change anybody's mind about anything.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)progree
(10,904 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)tclambert
(11,085 posts)Where do they think all that arctic ice went? You know, the ice that made it so hard to do any drilling up there?
So the people who sponsor the propaganda campaign to deny global warming want to take advantage of global warming to drill for more of the stuff that causes global warming so we can speed up global warming.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)However, I don't believe the corporatists are really intelligent enough to think of a far ahead strategy of creating global warming in order to do this. It seems to be just dumb luck.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)See the Real News interview here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017286974
You need to listen to both halves of the interview.
Hillary is not as strong on the environment as Bernie will be. She just does not have the moral strength to save the planet. She would have to be a very stubborn fighter to do what is right in this area.
She would need to invite environmentalists to the White House and give them the bully pulpit much more prominently than any president has done. I don't see her offending donors to do that.
As long as you have a candidate who accepts big money from Wall Street donors, you have a person who is not a free agent on the environment.
I'm sorry. But that is the reality.
Hillary Clinton has been bought by big donors on Wall Street. She is not a free agent. No matter where her heart lies on the environment, she is not free to act in the interests of the planet and the American people on it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Because there is drilling and then there is drilling.
What kind of "drilling" is Shell currently licensed to do on it's limited and highly regulated permit?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"President Enrique Peña Nieto said last month that Pemex would not be privatized and the public should be wary of those who sought to mislead or confuse the issue.
No one, ever, has even referred to or cited the need for privatization, the president told a gathering of PRI and Mexican Green Party leaders on Jan. 30.
Leftist parties alleged recently that the government planned to privatize Pemex, which has a monopoly over the production of crude oil and distribution of gasoline.
Pemex, the worlds No. 4 oil producer with output of about 2.5 million barrels per day, is the biggest contributor to Mexicos Treasury."
August 18, 2015
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14091&ArticleId=673444
...................
I, like the President of Mexico, am wary of those who might "mislead and confuse" on the issue, purposely, or not.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Would she send out the Marines to prevent the rigs from moving up there? Or is she going to leave it to a group of kayakers to try to stop the oil companies from doing this?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This is why the corporations want them.
Obama can, in the final months and days of his presidency, hand the keys to the kingdom, that is the oil exploration rights, everything on federal lands including in offshore waters, to the corporations.
If an environmental president comes in and tries to stop the drilling or does not finish giving the drilling rights, the oil companies go to the TPP courts and force American taxpayers to pay huge amounts of money just to protect the environment.
That may be the plan. I don't have inside knowledge on it. But it looks like the perfect set-up to me.
Remember how Bush tried to give away rights to pillate our national parks before leaving office?
Well, Obama is beating him to the punch.
We do not need or want Hillary in the White House. And we above all do not need or want the TPP.
This is precisely why those TPP and other trade courts are so dangerous and should not be instituted.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)They will do anything to make it so.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Not sure how much US position is going to affect. Looks more like the Putin Playground.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Now Im really confused. I thought she wasnt willing to go against the President where it came to policy.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)he has to knows she's just sayin' shit to get elected.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Right?
hmmmm
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but I doubt they will. Otherwise I don't think we'll ever really know for sure, because
he won't want to call attention to 'defections' from fellow Dems.
potone
(1,701 posts)She is not the first candidate to take this stand, but nevertheless she deserves credit for it. I think that climate change (which I regard as a euphemism for global warming) is the most serious issue we face because we don't have much more time to address it seriously before we pass the tipping point. So every voice that recognizes the danger of drilling in this precious area helps. I am disappointed in Obama for approving this drilling; I don't understand it.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I think she's pandering here.