Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:37 AM Apr 2016

Did you hear Hillary's answer on fracking, and natural gas development

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Natural gas being a bridge fuel to the future is Big Gas propaganda. Many experts have weighed in on why this approach is irresponsible and doesn't even significantly delay climate change.

Is it apparent that the money she takes IS having an influence on her since she's using Big Gas talking points? Sanders is absolutely correct that the money in politics is influencing policies that benefit the few but are very bad for the rest of us.

Yes Hillary, it appears you can be bought.

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did you hear Hillary's answer on fracking, and natural gas development (Original Post) Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 OP
Yep... I expect that talking point from a Repuke... GeorgiaPeanuts Apr 2016 #1
Hillary's "solution" Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #17
poisoning our water supplies is what worries me madokie Apr 2016 #18
Worse mike45567 Apr 2016 #35
Many Hillary talking points are also GOP talking points. QC Apr 2016 #39
well shut off everyone's natural gas right this minute and see if it's not a bridge fuel lol nt msongs Apr 2016 #2
Your candidate thinks this is okay artislife Apr 2016 #9
Most all fracking now is for OFF-SHORE consumption, shipping to other countries via LNG ships. TheBlackAdder Apr 2016 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author Vilis Veritas Apr 2016 #28
she's right uponit7771 Apr 2016 #3
She's not right...actually she's very very wrong... tex-wyo-dem Apr 2016 #13
Not really. progressoid Apr 2016 #15
+1000000 Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #31
Natural gas produces methane just as bad for the environment as coal and oil. ViseGrip Apr 2016 #4
Natural gas IS methane. Cleaner, however, than coal or petroleum, but still a carbon fuel CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #16
bridge fuel goes on the shelf with clean coal. She really should educate herself on energy stuff. Kip Humphrey Apr 2016 #5
"Clean coal" is right up there with VW's "clean diesel" on the list of lies BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #6
Her answer was good if was 1970 Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #10
Read this artislife Apr 2016 #7
Let's destroy our groundwater for hundreds of years! XemaSab Apr 2016 #8
I think they also want to limit the amount of fresh water available, so they can sell us that litlbilly Apr 2016 #34
I live in CA XemaSab Apr 2016 #36
Big bucks bark. SHRED Apr 2016 #11
Chesapeake Oil gave me $25K SHRED Apr 2016 #12
My inlaws inherited land which was fracked on hereforthevoting Apr 2016 #25
Yeah, and she is doing it for the ecology? passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #14
She also pushed coal jfern Apr 2016 #19
I know she wants to develop "clean" coal Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #20
"Clean coal" is a myth. Vinca Apr 2016 #22
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World B Calm Apr 2016 #23
OMG! The Clinton State Department, under the Obama presidency, pulled a Dick Cheney on us. hedda_foil Apr 2016 #41
#1 reason for my hesitancy on voting for her hereforthevoting Apr 2016 #24
Her position on fracking is the main reason I can't support her A Little Weird Apr 2016 #26
Yes, I remember watching ads with T. Boone Pickens making that argument. HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #27
Hillary is either shilling for natural gas or stupid All in it together Apr 2016 #29
Yes! To stop climate change, we need emergency measures, right now! Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #30
she lied--she said gas as a way to wean world off COAL--but she lobbied FOR coal as SoS! amborin Apr 2016 #32
With Clinton it's not an election, it's an auction. Still In Wisconsin Apr 2016 #33
^^ You said it ^^ It's not.an election, it's an auction. hedda_foil Apr 2016 #43
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #37
There are other ways to get natural gas besides fracking. nt eastwestdem Apr 2016 #38
Not in any significant amounts. Lone_Wolf Apr 2016 #40
How does anyone support that woman. vintx Apr 2016 #42
 

GeorgiaPeanuts

(2,353 posts)
1. Yep... I expect that talking point from a Repuke...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:38 AM
Apr 2016

Look how long we've been stuck on Coal... if we switch to Natty Gas we will just be chained to that for a long time too. And fracking just bad bad news. Oklahoma is having more and more earthquakes because of fracking.

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
17. Hillary's "solution"
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:16 AM
Apr 2016

Might have worked a couple decades ago. If it was enacted then, then right now is the time we should be converting to non-carbon, renewable energy. It's simply too late to use NG as a bridge fuel. That ship has sailed.

Someone as smart as Hillary should know what the majority of climate scientists are saying about how close they think we are from a non-recoverable tipping point. Since she's disregarded the experts opinions and is trying to sell us the Pickens Plan then it can only mean one of two things:

1. Her judgment on this is lacking, or

2. She's been corrupted by the money and shilling for Big Energy.

This is too important to screw up. Hillary is wrong and Sanders is 100% correct on the best course of action.

PS. If you gave a speech to the fossil fuel industry, release those transcripts as well.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
18. poisoning our water supplies is what worries me
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:20 AM
Apr 2016

Pumping the waste from fracking back into the ground seems to me to be very short sighted. Almost as stupid as making a waste that no one knows what exactly to do with as the nuclear industry does

mike45567

(12 posts)
35. Worse
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:48 PM
Apr 2016

Actually, methane releases dwarf the fracker's groundwater crimes. Not just Porter Ranch, which was fracked gas pumped into an existing well. All the shale areas are releasing huge quantities. A climate disaster.

TheBlackAdder

(28,225 posts)
21. Most all fracking now is for OFF-SHORE consumption, shipping to other countries via LNG ships.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:04 AM
Apr 2016

.


Making that statement is a little silly, since we have enough NG for our domestic use.

It's the dozen or so LNG ports that are either built or in the works to ship this gas to other countries.


The new plan is to damage our ecology, destroy our watersheds, so energy companies can sell to others.


.

Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #21)

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
13. She's not right...actually she's very very wrong...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:26 AM
Apr 2016

The extraction process for fracking generates a lot of methane, so on balance natural gas is no better (if not worse if you consider the ground water contamination and earthquakes caused by the process) than coal for its negtive affects on climate change.

progressoid

(49,999 posts)
15. Not really.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:39 AM
Apr 2016
natural gas has a climate downside—it’s mostly composed of methane. “Methane is a potent greenhouse gas,” said energy researcher Adam Brandt of Stanford University. The gas is about 30 times better at holding in the atmosphere’s heat compared with carbon dioxide. So if enough methane leaks during production, natural gas’s slim advantage over other fuels could be wiped out.


Switching from coal to natural gas for power generation won't do much to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and might even raise them slightly, in part because it will discourage the use of carbon-free renewable energy, according to a study released Wednesday.


Why Natural Gas Might Not Be A 'Bridge Fuel'


Climate benefits of natural gas as a bridge fuel and potential delay of near-zero energy systems

• Substituting natural gas for coal power plants may confer climate benefits.
• Delays in deploying low-emission power could offset climate benefits of natural gas.
• Natural gas may reduce CO2 emissions, yet result in additional near-term warming.
• Natural gas leakage and plant efficiencies affect relative benefits of gas vs. coal.




Even as the price of solar panels has dropped, inexpensive fracked gas reduces the incentives to convert to sun and wind. And once you’ve built the pipelines and gas-fired power plants, the sunk investment makes it that much harder to switch: Suddenly you have a bunch of gas barons who will fight as hard as the coal barons Obama is now trying to subdue.

As it turns out, economists have studied the dynamics of this transition, and each time reached the same conclusion. Because gas undercuts wind and sun just as much as it undercuts coal, there’s no net climate benefit in switching to it. For instance, the venerable International Energy Agency in 2011 concluded that a large-scale shift to gas would “muscle out” low-carbon fuels and still result in raising the globe’s temperatures 3.5 degrees Celsius …

Energy expert Michael Levi at the Council on Foreign Relations has found that if we wanted to meet that two-degree target (and since just one degree is already causing havoc, we sure should), global gas consumption would have to peak as early as 2020. Which is, in infrastructure terms, right about now—if we want to be moving past natural gas by 2020, we need to stop investing in it now.

The biggest single modeling exercise on this issue was carried out at Stanford in 2013, when teams from 14 companies, government agencies, and universities combined forces. They concluded that, in the words of analyst Joe Romm, “from a climate perspective the shale gas revolution is essentially irrelevant—and arguably a massive diversion of resources and money that could have gone into carbon-free sources.” And that study didn’t even look at the impact of leaking methane. …
 

CentralCoaster

(1,163 posts)
16. Natural gas IS methane. Cleaner, however, than coal or petroleum, but still a carbon fuel
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:39 AM
Apr 2016

Coal and Petroleum are ickier because of all the sulfur and other elements that come with them, but all are fossil fuels with that emit CO2 when burned and we need to get off the habit.

Hillary and to a lesser degree misunderstand petroleum, which isn't used in our grid, it's not used to generate electricity (except in Hawaii where it is the number one source, over 70%).

Transportation is the biggest user of petroleum, plus it's use for heating and some manufacturing.

Thus, any conversation about getting us off fossil fuels MUST talk about transportation and while Hillary gave due credit to Obama on raising mileage standards, Bernie is the only one who mentioned rail. I can't remember if it was high speed rail or reinvigorating our rail infrastructure or what, but we have to transform the grid, generation AND transportation!

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)
5. bridge fuel goes on the shelf with clean coal. She really should educate herself on energy stuff.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:55 AM
Apr 2016

I mean, we need someone who understands that methane is too dangerous to our already tipped environment to be considered an option. The latest study says to expect 9 feet of sea level rise by 2050! 9 FEET! By 2050! GET IT???

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
6. "Clean coal" is right up there with VW's "clean diesel" on the list of lies
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:58 AM
Apr 2016

I don't know that there's any corporate propaganda that Hillary won't swallow and repeat back to us if she's paid enough.

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
10. Her answer was good if was 1970
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:01 AM
Apr 2016

Sanders is right that these baby steps she proposes are too little too late.

 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
7. Read this
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:59 AM
Apr 2016
http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/14/fracking-impact-water-land-climate/

In a single year, fracking wells across the country released at least 5.3 billion pounds of the potent greenhouse gas methane, as much global warming pollution as 22 coal-fired power plants.

The statistic is one of many in a new study by Environment America Research & Policy Center that quantifies the environmental harm caused by more 137,000 fracking wells permitted since 2005.


And the wonder how any Dem could possibly think Fracking is okay.
 

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)
34. I think they also want to limit the amount of fresh water available, so they can sell us that
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:48 AM
Apr 2016

at inflated prices. Its all connected IMO. They want total control of the water.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
12. Chesapeake Oil gave me $25K
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:12 AM
Apr 2016

It was a mineral rights lease agreement.
Wyoming land I inherited.

What I learned in the process is you either negotiate with oil companies or they will take it anyway in Wyoming. That's how they roll there so I negotiated some protections from injury liability and water rights in my favor.

I'm thankful they didn't frack and the lease ran out.
Yeah, I might have been wealthy but at what price?

hereforthevoting

(241 posts)
25. My inlaws inherited land which was fracked on
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:10 AM
Apr 2016

When they said they would give us some of the money and reneged I wasn't even mad.

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
20. I know she wants to develop "clean" coal
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:37 AM
Apr 2016

It's not ready for prime time and probably never really will be.

Vinca

(50,313 posts)
22. "Clean coal" is a myth.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:06 AM
Apr 2016

Fortunately, the coal industry is rapidly going down the tubes on its own.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
23. How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:08 AM
Apr 2016

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

hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)
41. OMG! The Clinton State Department, under the Obama presidency, pulled a Dick Cheney on us.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 04:04 PM
Apr 2016

I couldn't quite finish this excellent and we'll documented article. It made me feel sick. Here's where the queen pulls a Cheney.


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."

"Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers," said Clinton. "How will this shape world events? Who will benefit?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role." 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."

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Enegy.


Question of the day: Did Obama give her free reign on foreign policy or did he give her marching orders.

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)
26. Her position on fracking is the main reason I can't support her
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:20 AM
Apr 2016

I prefer Bernie for a lot of other reasons too but if she should win the nomination, I don't know how I'll be able to get past this and vote for her. Hopefully Bernie will win the nomination and I won't have to worry about it.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
27. Yes, I remember watching ads with T. Boone Pickens making that argument.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:24 AM
Apr 2016

Of course, Pickens is the biggest of the big gas bags.

All in it together

(275 posts)
29. Hillary is either shilling for natural gas or stupid
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:34 AM
Apr 2016

I don't think she's stupid. She certainly is bad on the environment with this promotion of natural gas. What was she doing promoting fracking around the world? I didn't want my taxes paying for that. And how did she benefit either personally or through her foundation?

She's not just slow walking the fight against climate change, she's taking us backwards. This is the most important thing besides war and she's wrong on both. These are not right wing talking points, what she says is.

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
30. Yes! To stop climate change, we need emergency measures, right now!
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:07 AM
Apr 2016

Hillary's greedy backers only see the $$$. They think of global warming as an investment opportunity.

Lone_Wolf

(1,603 posts)
40. Not in any significant amounts.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:07 AM
Apr 2016

Most of our country's NG is locked up in tight shale rock formations. The most efficient way to extract it is with hydrofracking which is something Big Gas is very open about.

I live in a part of NY above the Marcellus Shale that was targeted by these predatory Gas companies and their company propaganda shills. Their words and PR material sound an awful lot like the local Republicans politicians around me like Fred Akshar, Tom Libous, Debbie Preston, and so on. Not so coincidentally, these jackasses take huge sums of money from Big Gas and their allies.

So please forgive me if I don't trust Hillary when her words sound exactly the same as theirs.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Did you hear Hillary's an...