Stop fracking altogether and watch those coal fired electrical plants that switched to natural gas revert right back to coal. Bernie allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

We need to radically transform our energy system to 100% renewable energy as quickly as we can. Climate Change is the greatest existential threat to America and the World.

That is why I stand with a candidate committed to banning fracking and bringing us to 100% renewable energy grid as quickly as possible.

It never seems to occur to you that we need a leader to change the conversation using the presidential bully pit, not just go along with the thugs who run Congress. Hillary has made it very clear she will just capitulate to the thugs ASAP.

You seem eager to just let them keep consolidating the oligarchy.

Jane Mayer's new book Dark Money is extraordinary in explaining how the Koch's vast political network recruited the wealthiest Republicans in the country to create a shadow political party that is every bit as powerful as the two established parties. I highly recommend every Democrat read this phenomenal book.

Huh?

Democrat in the White House will only be able to make incremental gains, Sanders included.

It's not such a great system, because she flushes liberal ideals down the drain to make it happen.

the wealthiest Republicans in the nation.

As well as one running for the nomination.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/new_york_officially_bans_hydrofracking.html


Albany, N.Y -- It's official: New York has banned fracking.

After more than seven years of study, the state Department of Environmental Conservation today issued the final document needed to ban the controversial drilling practice, known formally as high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

"Prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative," said DEC Commissioner Joe Martens in a prepared statement. "High-volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. This decision is consistent with DEC's mission to conserve, improve and protect our state's natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state."

Today's finding statement has been in the works since December, when Martens said he would ban fracking because too little was known about the potential health impacts. Last month, the DEC released a 1,448-page report on fracking that began in 2009. Today's findings statement is based on that report.

The fracking ban is not permanent, and could be rescinded. Proponents and opponents of the ban both said they expect lawsuits to be filed.

Fracking has drawn more scrutiny than any other environmental issue in New York. The study released in May drew 260,000 public comments. More than 300 pages of the final study were devoted to responding to those comments.

"July 17, 2015
Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5?ts4f5hfr=

Adios, environment -- because her power matters more than sustainable life on earth.

Whew! That's devotion.

there's always Perrier for the masses.

I can't believe there are people who won't completely ban fracking that is insane.

All for profit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/28/new-seismic-hazard-map-includes-fracking-related-quakes-for-the-first-time/

fracking decimates more than coal, by a long shot, this is just one example

Shall we go into the facts about contaminating aquifers and water supplies as well?

lakes and high water levels in our ground water he should know better. Not to mention what an earthquake would mean to us.

Sure, when we're running on 100% green energy, no more fracking. Until then, we need natural gas.

smell those fumes? more of that republican lightism that wafts from HRC and her supporters

swap out HRC and insert any other GOP candidate, this same narrative reeks from them

so called 'bridge' sources 'until we can get to' other renewables... it's only 10 years off they will say....

did you really just ask me if one fossil fuel is cleaner than another?

You're in the wrong party my friend...

WOW, just wow... are all HRC supporters trying to heavy lift this environmental position past others in this site?

And DanTex is constantly spamming everyone that they are Trump supporter if they have reservations about supporting Clinton and here he is supporting a right winger environmental policy.

folks like him post these craptastic republican positions and statements for HRC who is clearly a republican light candiate...

she's shilled for the industry when SoS...

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

Do you disagree that this is cleaner? Is it not a good thing to pump (much) less CO2 into the atmosphere?

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

again, you're trying to debate using GOP talking points

You're in the wrong party and supporting a republican light candidate that shilled while SoS for the industry
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

fracking does more harm to the environment, so adding in the 'atmosphere and CO2' bit makes it a much more devastating source

by that, then you really need to read up on emissions. Natural Gas burns cleaner, that's the whole reason that Obama has been pushing to replace coal plants with gas plants.

yeah, sure... if you gloss over how that resource is extracted, sure, you have a magical gas...

why do you so blatantly ignore fracking in your magical gas equation?

Oh wait....

Yes, there need to be regulations to make sure the extraction is done cleanly. Which both Obama and Clinton are in favor of. But overall, replacing coal with Natural Gas is a good thing.

By the way, coal extraction isn't exactly the cleanest process either....

You're in the wrong party, go shill your GOP talking points to folks that don't know the details of your charade...

environmental topics. The Dems are the party of science.

take your GOP talking points to someone else that will heed them, I won't

have a good day...

That's not a "GOP talking point" it's the simple truth. I guess you weren't aware of that, which is rather shocking for someone trying to have a discussion about energy policy. But now you know.

extraction, processing and the like, speaks VOLUMES as it pertains to you DanTex, so there is that going for ya...

go carry that craptastic TP you have there to someone that cares, have a good day

so intent on replacing coal with NG. Until I told you, you didn't even know that it produced much less CO2. In your own words "wow."

Obviously, there are extraction costs associated with either coal or NG, and obviously there need to be environmental regulations for both. But for you to sit here and defend coal power while insisting that I'm some kind of Republican for opposing it is absurd.

I DO know about natural gas, from extraction all the way through processing, so please don't malign me as it pertains to this issue

you're a GOP TP shill... read your replies here proves that out

I don't want EITHER coal nor natural gas

the only thing that's 'absurd' here is you and your replies

NG is cleaner. Right now we burn tons of coal. Switching from coal to NG reduces carbon emissions.

Everyone is in favor of increasing investment in green energy, Hillary, Obama, and Bernie. But that's a longer term goal, and we're not going to be 100% green for a while, and so replacing coal with NG is one way to reduce the damage we do to the environment.

And for some reason, you're opposed to that, and are actually defending the continued use of coal because you're irrationally opposed to NG. Strange.

Let's play the GOP TP game shall we...

"NG is cleaner"... the 'bait and switch' bit

"Everyone is in favor of increasing investment in green energy...But that's a longer term goal" the 'we want to increase investment but that tech is 10 years off' bit

"we're not going to...for a while" again, here's the '10 years off or down the road' bit

"replacing coal with NG" here's the 'bridge' bit

How many times do we need to go around this merry-go-round DanTex?

Obviously you've clamped down like any good GOP TPer and resist letting go and acknowledging you've lost

NG is cleaner. No scare quotes, that's a fact. For some reason you refuse to even acknowledge that. And I have no idea why. It's not debatable, there are very clear statistics on how much CO2 each emits per unit of energy. It's science.

Your entire argument is based on a failure to accept basic scientific truths. And the other truth is that Obama, Hillary, and Bernie are all in favor of aggressively pursuing green alternatives.

The thing is, right now, we don't have enough green capacity to power the nation. Not even close. So while we are building up that capacity, do we continue burning coal, or switch over to cleaner NG?

And you're advocating for continued coal burning. While accusing me of being a GOPer. Remarkable!

you've clamped down indeed...
read this and re-read your reply...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

GOP TPers like you are easy to spar with and beat, so I'll end with this bit

Germany is showing how it can be done NOW, you have to put in 'extreme' effort to make it possible, much like Bernie is advocating for in this primary... but HRC supporters say he's 'too extreme', he would never get it to pass/work... again, point out that Germany is succeeding

you're intellectually disingenuous, trying to carve out just the 'it's cleaner' bit validates that alone...

I get that you're advocating for fracking, for NG and that special interest, your candidate shilled for it while she was SoS and she will do so if she were to get elected prez

I'm not advocating for EITHER fossil fuel but, rather for renewables like Germany has and beyond, we can leverage wave power with all our shorelines that Germany doesn't have access to

that major roadblocks to that end are folks like you DanTex, get out of the way and then those solutions you try to point out that are 'off in the distance' will be right at our feet

Small measures mark you and your candidate, smallness becomes you, as well as your candidate, our society, our species deserves better... so I'll ask you again, get out of our way and let us do the real work needed to get humanity back to where it needs to be and can be without your interference

And of course we need to build up more renewable energy like Germany. This is exactly why Hillary's platform includes extremely aggressive investments in renewables and green energy sources.

But the coal/NG debate isn't about how fast we go green. It's entirely orthogonal. The faster we get green, the better, here we agree. But this is about what we do about the carbon-based energy which we will still need to be providing until we get there. The more coal we replace with NG, the less CO2 that ends up in the atmosphere.

Like a lot of Bernie fans, reality seems a little too much for you. Somehow you simply can't process the fact that until we get 100% green, we will still be burning fossil fuels. And that as long as that's true, it is (much) better for us to be burning NG.

Apparently this is too abstract, which is why you are insisting that we continue to burn coal rather than switching to cleaner NG. For ideological reasons, you refuse to even educate yourself about which fossil fuels produce more or less CO2. Even after I gave you a link with the numbers. It seems that you're afraid that even allowing the facts into your brain might affect your purely ideological outlook.

I gotta say, it's a good thing that there aren't enough people like you to actually win Bernie the nomination.

Hillary Clinton never actually said the word “fracking” during her keynote address at the National Clean Energy Summit in Nevada on Thursday, but she still clearly laid out her views on the technique: She’s all for it. She says it needs to be conducted and regulated properly so it doesn’t cause excessive environmental harm, but she believes that can be done. Which puts her totally in line with President Obama, and out of line with most of the environmental community.

During her address, Clinton spoke about the great promise of renewable energy and energy efficiency, for our economy, our national security, and the climate. We need to “build a safe bridge to a clean energy economy,” she said. And when she said the word “bridge,” you knew what was coming next:

Now part of that bridge will certainly come from natural gas. There are challenges here to be sure, but the boom in domestic gas production is an example of American innovation changing the game, and if we do it right, it can be good for both the environment and our economy. With the right safeguards in place, gas is cleaner than coal. And expanding production is creating tens of thousands of new jobs. And lower costs are helping give the United States a big competitive advantage in energy-intensive energies. …

Make him stop!

So now I'm pro-fracking and get things done!

it poisons the water

it creates earthquakes

here in the mid west we have huge natural gas wells that produce tons of energy and basically it just takes a pipe into the ground and a regulator to control out put

is the transport a problem or are the frackers just energy companies that didn't get into the easy gas so they are willing to poison the planet?

support fracking.

Below, a frustrated Bernie supporter tries to explain, to a group of idiots who support fracking, why their plants won't grow, and how they can solve the problem:

We don't want to upset anyone by contrasting the candidates on actual issues that matter.

Esp. the huge swath of the state that sits north of Pennsylvania. This point needs to be pounded home as a major difference between the two candidates in NY, a state that has fought very hard to get fracking banned.

Bernie and Hillary and Fracking:

https://vimeo.com/157982054


*********************************************************************

(and how she didn't appear to consider much at all those 'conditions' peddling it to other nations)


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 | September/October 2014 Issue

Hillary Clinton is welcomed to Sofia by Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Nikolay Mladenov, left. US Department of State/flickr





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

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world

Thanks for the thread, Gregorian.

When the ground shakes and the water is poisoned and our children's futures shown once and for all to be irreversibly damaged, she'll 'evolve'. Then when she does the same people will jump to her defense and claim it's a smear to hold her responsible.