2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDid 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.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)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)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)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
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.
QC
(26,371 posts)Funny how that works, isn't it?
msongs
(67,455 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Do YOU?
Because I think it sucks. I actually care about this planet.
TheBlackAdder
(28,225 posts).
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)
Vilis Veritas This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)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)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.
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, theres 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 globes 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 nowif 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 irrelevantand arguably a massive diversion of resources and money that could have gone into carbon-free sources. And that study didnt even look at the impact of leaking methane.
Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)n/t
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)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)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)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)Sanders is right that these baby steps she proposes are too little too late.
artislife
(9,497 posts)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.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Just so we can have cheap shit!
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)at inflated prices. Its all connected IMO. They want total control of the water.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and I don't doubt this.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)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)When they said they would give us some of the money and reneged I wasn't even mad.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)How is it good for ecology if it poisons our ground water?
jfern
(5,204 posts)Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)It's not ready for prime time and probably never really will be.
Vinca
(50,313 posts)Fortunately, the coal industry is rapidly going down the tubes on its own.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)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)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 overseasboth 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 companiesincluding Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathonclamoring 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.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)I just don't get a sense of her commitment in this domain.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)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)Of course, Pickens is the biggest of the big gas bags.
All in it together
(275 posts)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)Hillary's greedy backers only see the $$$. They think of global warming as an investment opportunity.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,444 posts)Thanks for the thread, Lone_Wolf.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)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.
vintx
(1,748 posts)smh