2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSecretary Clinton doesn't make appropriate decisions on important issues
Being beholden to moneyed interested is likely part of the reason, since she is a very intelligent person.
Her position on the relative importance of greenhouse gas emissions related to fracking is a prime example.
Bill McKibben writes
"
To take just one example, an article in Mother Jones based on the WikiLeaks cables reveals what happened when fracking came to Bulgaria. In 2011, the country signed a $68 million deal with Chevron, granting the company millions of acres in shale-gas concessions. The Bulgarian public wasnt happy: Tens of thousands were in the streets of Sofia with banners reading Stop Fracking With Our Water. But when Clinton came for a state visit in 2012, she sided with Chevron (one of whose executives had bundled large sums for her presidential campaign in 2008). In fact, the leaked cables show that the main topic of her meetings with Bulgarias leaders was fracking. Clinton offered to fly in the best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people, and she dispatched her Eurasian energy envoy, Richard Morningstar, to lobby hard against a fracking ban in neighboring Romania. Eventually, they won those battlesand today, the State Department provides assistance with fracking to dozens of countries around the world, from Cambodia to Papua New Guinea.
So if the United States has had a terrible time tracking down and fixing its methane leaks, ask yourself how its going to go in Bulgaria. If Canada finds that sealing leaks is an unresolved engineering challenge, ask yourself how Cambodias going to make out. If the State Department has its way, then in a few years Harvards satellites will be measuring gushers of methane from every direction.
Of course, we canand perhaps we should forgive all that past. The information about methane is relatively new; when Obama and Clinton and Zichal started backing fracking, they didnt really know. They could have turned around much earlier, like Kennedy or the Sierra Club. But what they do now will be decisive.
There are a few promising signs. Clinton has at least tempered her enthusiasm for fracking some in recent debates, listing a series of preconditions shed insist on before new projects were approved; Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has called for a moratorium on new fracking. But Clinton continues to conflate and confuse the chemistry: Natural gas, she said in a recent position paper, has helped US carbon emissions reach their lowest level in 20 years. It appears that many in power would like to carry on the fracking revolution, albeit a tad more carefully.
"
those 4 paragraphs from this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/) do not tell the story of why it is so important to stop fracking now and not pretend that it can be done safely or that it is a "bridge fuel". Read the beginning of the article if you do not know why this is so as related to methane emissions. Howarth's original paper was out in 2012 and anyone making global scale decisions about fracking should have been aware of this data and begun to factor this information into policy decisions as the science progressed.
I don't find her to be credible as a presidential candidate given her inability to make appropriate decisions at first cut.
Don't blame me if you vote for her instead of the person who has gotten this issue right first time and every time.
Ban Fracking now.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)is best for her image politically?
Agony
(2,605 posts)your retort is "Same old climate science denial"
and I can only guess that it follows that you don't assign import to corruption driven civilization damaging policy decisions.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But, then again, the people voting for her are also showing very bad judgement, so it's a good match.
4139
(1,893 posts)She has awful judgment, always wrong and then back pedals when called to answer for her many errors:
NAFTA (the 2 for 1, so what's Bill's is hers, too)
Telecommunications (ditto)
Welfare Reform (ditto)
Glass-Steagall reversal (ditto)
IWR
Bankruptcy bill
Patriot Acts 1&2
Honduras
Libya
Syria
Fracking
Monsanto
TPP
Keystone pipeline
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Does such a list "qualify" one to be President?
casperthegm
(643 posts)As you can see from the "meh" comment above, none of it matters. These are real, vitally important issues, and things we are accustomed to seeing on the gop platform, are we not?
But none of it seems to matter does it? What a sad state of affairs.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)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 globepart 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 officialssome with deep ties to industryalso 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
Spoils the water and air, but who cares about that when the almighty dollar's involved?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)The Balkins are still in a precarious situation with regards to Russia, the more local resources the better, as far as they're concerned.
Just saying, that is a perfectly reasonable thing for the SoS to be discussing, particularly in light of the Ukraine issues.