HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Where do you stand on fra...

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 06:27 PM

 

Where do you stand on fracking? Clinton supports and Sanders is against.

As it becomes more difficult to extract gas from the ground, oil companies are turning more and more to processes like fracking.

Fracking is the injection of a high pressure mixture of water and chemicals into shale to crack the shale to release the trapped gas. (1)

Fracking uses extremely large amounts of fresh water plus a secret mixture of chemicals.

“Fracking requires between two and five million gallons of local freshwater per well - up to 100 times more than traditional extraction methods. “ (1)

While fracking may be beneficial to oil company profits, it's extremely bad for the environment. Water is one of the most important resources we have and fracking is contaminating billions of gallons, rendering it unfit for normal human use.

The chemicals used include carcinogens and toxins like, lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and over 500 more types. (2)

And what happens to the billions of gallons of contaminated fresh water? Great question.

While oil company profits are rising, peoples around the world are protesting the effect of fracking on their environments.

“PHILADELPHIA -- Demonstrators in the United States and other countries protested Saturday against the natural gas drilling process known as fracking that they say threatens public health and the environment.” (3)

So where do the candidates stand on this process of fracking our environment?

Hillary Clinton is a strong proponent of fracking. While working for the taxpayers as Secretary of State, she used the power of the US of A to convince foreign governments to begin or increase their use of fracking in spite of the protesting peoples in those countries.

“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.” (3)

So while peoples in countries around the world are protesting the destruction of their fresh water, Secretary Clinton was using our tax dollars to help Haliburton, Chevron, and other oil giants convince governments to use the environmentally damaging process of fracking.

While some try to say that Clinton and Senator Sanders are close on most issues, the fricking fracking issue shows that they are miles apart.

"I'm very proud that the state of Vermont banned fracking. I hope communities all over California, and all over America do the same."
Senator Bernie Sanders (4)


Oil companies are using the fracking process around the world to increase their profits while destroying the freshwater supplies of the people. And where are they going to dump their billions of gallons of toxic waste water? Probably not in their own backyard.

(1) http://www.cleanwateraction.org/page/fracking-process

(2) http://dangersoffracking.com/

(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/global-protests-fracking-globalfrackdown_n_1905034.html

(4) http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/bernie12.htm

31 replies, 1560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Where do you stand on fracking? Clinton supports and Sanders is against. (Original post)
rhett o rick Apr 2016 OP
stellanoir Apr 2016 #1
TimeToEvolve Apr 2016 #31
riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #2
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #3
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #4
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #5
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #9
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #13
Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #6
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #8
slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #7
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #10
Avalux Apr 2016 #11
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #14
PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #12
Zira Apr 2016 #15
Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #16
Octafish Apr 2016 #17
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #18
Octafish Apr 2016 #20
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #21
Octafish Apr 2016 #24
passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #29
Vinca Apr 2016 #19
Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2016 #22
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #23
Raine Apr 2016 #25
seekthetruth Apr 2016 #26
TimeToEvolve Apr 2016 #27
Bohemianwriter Apr 2016 #28
passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #30

Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 06:46 PM

1. Water is the source of all life.

To despoil it further will be our ruin.

People of wisdom know this to be true.

May the waters be purified &/or remain so.

“nam myoho renge kyo”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stellanoir (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:29 PM

31. here is the HRC approach to listening wisdom


"because: math!" is prioritized over "water is the source of all life"

the latter is true in reality, while the former is only true in some bullshit symbolic sense

HRC and her snivel have a serious ego problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:02 PM

2. Vehemently opposed. Environmental concerns are my #1 issue. Thanks for this OP.

 



War is another human inflicted environmental disaster - we focus on the tragedy of the human cost and frequently forget the disaster we inflict on our planet.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:03 PM

3. I live in WNY, we are very strongly against the practice and worked our asses off to get it banned.

Almost everyone I know was very active, we wil be helping Sanders ban it nationally if he gets elected and many here have experience fighting against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:33 PM

4. What's Clinton's latest position? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:07 PM

5. We will have to wait until her team tells her what her most recent position is. The last I heard

She was for it and against it, in a word salad of regulations and conditions that was pretty long and rambling, after she was done, I had no idea what her position was even then.

Bernie's position on the answer on if he was for frakking was much easier to navigate without a team of lawyers and divination experts, his answer was"


No.

Much easier to know what he meant by what he said in comparison.

Can't wait to hear what her latest position is, someone should really keep a spreadsheet with dates in order to keep up with her positions as they change so often.

Without a spreadsheet or something, I honestly don't know how anyone keeps up to date with it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:10 PM

9. here's Hillary's position on fracking in her own words:

from a recent debate
https://soundcloud.com/bocabritany/hillarys-frackntap

(also includes Bernie's position)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:04 PM

13. Was that really her response? Holy schit. No wonder her poor fans won't comment on fracking..

 

They have no idea where she stands.

What I heard her saying was that she supports fracking unless it might be damaging to the environment, WHICH IS AL-FRACKING-WAYS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:11 PM

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 07:54 PM

8. YW, Uncle Joe nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:41 PM

7. knr nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:17 PM

10. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:30 PM

11. BAN IT. NOW.

I've seen what fracking has done in PA, and here in Texas. Climate change must be taken seriously, like yesterday, and we simply cannot continue this practice of pumping chemicals in the ground so we can suck out fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:05 PM

14. Yes the chemical are bad enough, but the contaminiated water that they recover is billions of tons

 

and they have to find a place to get rid of it. Whose back yard? Not H. Clinton's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:37 PM

12. Fracking should be banned.

The practice creates long term degraded environment that cannot be fixed or mitigated.

The danger to fresh water supply is serious and irreversible.

The disposal of contaminated of contaminated waste water extreme.

The lack of transparency regards to the composition of the fracking fluids is troubling.

Earthquakes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:07 PM

15. You should have thrown a poll for it with the info.

 

People here seem to love polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:28 PM

16. I'm against it and candidates who use Big Gas talking points that promote it

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 10:32 AM

17. If they can frack in New York, they can frack anywhere!

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
Mother Jones, September/October 2014

EXCERPT...

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."

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.

According to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one of Goldwyn's first acts at the State Department was gathering oil and gas industry executives "to discuss the potential international impact of shale gas." Clinton then sent a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so "in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible."

CONTINUED...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 03:54 PM

18. are they fracking in Cali?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:11 PM

20. Why, yes.

Fracking has been documented in 10 California counties — Colusa, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Sutter, Kings and Ventura. Oil companies have also fracked offshore wells hundreds of times in the ocean near California’s coast, from Seal Beach to the Santa Barbara Channel.

SOURCE: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/faq.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:13 PM

21. I guess you can never have too many earthquakes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:33 PM

24. Or too much money.

"Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves — 43.6 billion barrels — outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects."

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-3-alerts-precis/mailid-74-three-little-words-wikileaks-libya-oil.html

"US Libya Business Association." Har har.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:25 PM

29. If they can frack in New York, they can frack anywhere!

OK, that was funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:06 PM

19. 100% opposed to it.

We can't risk the safety of our water supplies in the name of profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:32 PM

22. Here's Clinton's actual position on fracking. The OP is, of course, misleading

A college student asked Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton a simple question at the Flint, Mich., debate on Sunday night: "Do you support fracking?"

And Bernie Sanders had a simple answer: "No, I do not support fracking."


Read MoJo's Investigation: How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Hillary Clinton, though, needed more time to outline three conditions in a more nuanced answer on fracking. She's against it "when any locality or any state is against it," "when the release of methane or contamination of water is present," and "unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using."

Until those conditions are met, "we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking."

"By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place," she added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:12 PM

23. Oh my goodness. If she wants to regulate fracking, it's a very recent 180 degree reversal of

 

what she was selling as SoS, per MoJo's article.

I don't see this on her HillaryClinton.com. Maybe I missed it. But it must be very new.

So where did you get these quotes? They are great examples of Clinton Speak. She is against fracking when the states or localities are against it. That means absolutely nothing. So she won't try to overrule localities that outlaw it. BFD.

But then she says she is against it, "when the release of methane or contamination of water is present," Again WTF does this mean. All fracking releases methane and contaminates water. How would she regulate this?

"unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using." She didn't say that there would be a list of chemicals that are forbidden. I guess they are all ok if the oil companies just tell us.

I won't go on but there is more of the same bullcrap.

Sen Sanders said it best. Stop fracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:15 PM

25. Totally opposed! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:21 PM

26. She'll always be for fracking because that's where her money comes from.

 

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:22 PM

27. where are the hillary supporters?

so when we discuss an issue that actually MATTERS like fracking, what do he hear from the hillary crowd?: -crickets-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:23 PM

28. I support fracking...

 

On a few conditions.

If all the politicians who supports fracking lets an oil company frack in their back yard, have a pipeline next to it, and let their oil spills go right in the tap water of said politicians' homes.

Is Hillary up for a little visit from BP outside her mansion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread