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
 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:32 PM Apr 2016

Clinton shares what David Roberts has identified as Obama’s split personality on climate change...

tackling it aggressively on the consumption side but continuing to boost fossil fuel supplies. That’s not as bad as the science deniers on the Republican side, or the climate curmudgeonliness of likely Democratic candidate Jim Webb. But it’s also not quite the climate hawkishness we need.

5. She promoted fracking abroad while secretary of state. Clinton encouraged developing countries to sign deals with American fossil fuel companies to extract their shale gas through fracking. This is consistent with Obama’s fondness for touting natural gas as a lower-carbon “bridge fuel” to help us move from coal to renewables. Mariah Blake of Mother Jones did a deep dive from last year that found, “Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the glob — 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.”

6. Her family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia. Pacific Rubiales’ founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation’s board. IBT reports, “After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial US-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it ‘strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.'” A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn’t going into Hillary Clinton’s pocket or her campaign account.

7. She has supported offshore oil drilling. In 2006, Clinton sided with Republicans and against climate hawks like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) by voting in favor of a bill opening new Gulf Coast areas to offshore oil drilling. Obama has opened up many areas for offshore oil drilling, and it’s possible Clinton would do the same.

8. She avoids saying anything about Keystone XL. Even when asked directly about it, Clinton just refuses to answer. In January she told a Canadian audience, “You won’t get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I’m not going to express an opinion.” This, in fairness, may simply reflect her understandable concern that as a former secretary of state she should not take a position on an issue currently under review by her successor. It’s also a tough issue for her, though, as it pits environmentalists and climate hawks against Democratic-leaning construction unions and most independent voters who favor more oil production in North America.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/15/heres-hillary-clinton-presidency-mean-global-warming/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton shares what David Roberts has identified as Obama’s split personality on climate change... (Original Post) WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2016 OP
Failing to actually address climate change will render Presidencies "moot," in terms of historical villager Apr 2016 #1
Madame President will go down as the worst president ever for failing to act aggressively riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #3
THIS is not the president we want. We do not need either jwirr Apr 2016 #2
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
1. Failing to actually address climate change will render Presidencies "moot," in terms of historical
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:37 PM
Apr 2016

...perspective, or judgment.

No matter how many "gotcha" lines one posts on the interwebs, in support of their candidate.

If there's anyone around to have such a perspective, that is.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
3. Madame President will go down as the worst president ever for failing to act aggressively
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:56 PM
Apr 2016

Incrementalism and status quo are not the solutions we desperately need in our 11th hour.

We need fierce, muscular leadership on climate change. From Day 1 in office. That's Bernie, not Hillary Fracking Clinton.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
2. THIS is not the president we want. We do not need either
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:52 PM
Apr 2016

her stance on the issue of climate change or her dishonesty in dealing with these issues.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton shares what David...