Fracking is a huge environmental and human threat. Why does Obama support it?

[cali]

Advocates of fracking seem to be fond of saying that it can be done safely. That may be true but there's little to indicate that it is being done safely.

Here are just some of the problems with fracking:

Water. It takes enormous amounts of water. Many of the places in this country undergoing serious drought, are also places where fracking is taking place. In fact, something like 50% of fracking wells are in drought impacted regions.

<snip>

Nearly half of the 39,294 reported "fracked" wells drilled in the U.S. since 2011 are in regions with high or extreme water stress, according to a report by Ceres, an investor and environmental-advocacy group.

In Colorado, Ceres found that 97 percent of the wells are being drilled in highly or extremely highly water-stressed areas, such as the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Read more: When drought occurs, fracking and farming collide - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25089583/when-drought-occurs-fracking-and-farming-collide#ixzz2sqzl1PSV

That fact in itself should be enough for any thinking person to grasp the negative impact of fracking on the environment, but there's so much more:

Water quality:

Fracking pollutes water.

Tests show Texas well water polluted by fracking, despite EPA assurances
http://grist.org/news/tests-show-texas-well-water-polluted-by-fracking-despite-epa-assurances/

Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found.

The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment.

"Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said.

<snip>

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington

http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf

Fracking's Impact on Climate Change:

As controversy rages over high-volume hydraulic fracturing and climate change, Cornell University professor Robert Howarth has fanned the flames.

Howarth, 61, of Trumansburg, was the lead author of a 2011 study that was the first to explore natural gas leaks, chiefly made up of methane, and their impacts on climate change.
Howarth’s study found that methane leakage from fracking was speeding climate change quicker than previously estimated. The study questioned the viability of natural gas as a clean fuel that could bridge the gap toward sustainable energy sources, and it added a new dimension to the debate over fracking. Howarth’s work drew heavy fire from the oil-and-gas industry, and praise from environmental activists.

<snip>

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20140208/NEWS01/302080015/Cornell-expert-impacts-fracking-debate

The EPA has done a for shit job re fracking:

A major report on the environmental impact of fracking has been delayed until 2016. The study, which began in 2010, was scheduled to be released this year.

The EPA has dropped several studies:


EPA Abandons Fracking Study In Pavilion, Wyoming Following Similar Closed Investigations

When the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly retreated on its multimillion-dollar investigation into water contamination in a central Wyoming natural gas field last month, it shocked environmentalists and energy industry supporters alike.

In 2011, the agency had issued a blockbuster draft report saying that the controversial practice of fracking was to blame for the pollution of an aquifer deep below the town of Pavillion, Wy. – the first time such a claim had been based on a scientific analysis.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/epa-fracking-study-pavillion-wyoming_n_3542365.html

Internal EPA Report Conflicts with Agency’s Stance on Fracking Contamination in Pennsylvania Town

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/internal-epa-report-conflicts-with-agencys-stance-on-fracking-contamination-in-pennsylvania-town-130731?news=850736

Fracking and birth defects:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116490/colorado-fracking-study-evidence-it-causes-birth-defects-mounting

The explosion in the number of fracking wells is continuing at breakneck speed:

<snip>

Since the late 1990s, American landscapes have become dotted with a small forest of shale gas wells — 13,000 new ones a year, or about 35 a day, according to the American Petroleum Institute. In the past decade, this steady stream of development has become a gusher as nearly half the country has staked claim to these energy riches. In 2000, the USA had 342,000 natural gas wells. By 2010, more than 510,000 were in place — a 49% jump — according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

<snip>

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-29/fracking-environment-gas/55845708/1

[LiberalEsto]

1. Because he is a corporatist nt

[grahamhgreen]

15. He loves the money folk.

[rhett o rick]

28. Because he is a corporatist. Oh, did you say that? Well, then I agree. nm

[BlueJac]

45. Always has been

[jsr]

2. But his former Interior Secretary says it has not “created an environmental problem for anyone”

[cali]

4. so do quite a few DUers.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024461299

and most fracking threads sink. Keystone threads seem to generate a lot of responses. I think fracking is a larger problem.

[Laelth]

3. Good luck getting a straight answer to your question.

The real answer is too horrifying for most of us at accept.

-Laelth

[Wilms]

5. Because he's sooo bi-partisany

...and dreamy, too!

[cali]

6. I think the EPA and their shenanigans is connected to the President's support

[Enthusiast]

59. There is nothing quite so dreamy as cooperating with Republicans.

[joshcryer]

7. return on investment?

the USA was instrumental in funding its technological development

the USA has an energy independent roadmap which will be followed by every president

[Laelth]

21. Interesting. If you'd like to expand, I'm genuinely interested. n/t

-Laelth

[joshcryer]

31. on my phone right now

but I'll get you some links when I get to my computer

keystone is more about geopolitical interests, but having control of tar sands allows the USA to have leverage over fossil fuels allowing the USA to call the shots over future renewable tech

[malthaussen]

8. Only he knows.

But like most academics, he has a tendency to trust (and perhaps hold in awe) "experts" in a field where his knowledge is limited. And his belief in the American Dream almost guarantees he would also trust (and perhaps hold in awe) people who have pushed their way to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

And he needs to keep the energy flowing in the short term, which means relying on methods that are already in place, regardless of how bad they may be for the environment. Whatever he may personally wish for in the long term, the power needs to stay on now. No clean alternative is going to be able to deal with the grid's needs overnight, or even over years.

-- Mal

[cali]

9. But many experts in the field- as demonstrated in my OP- are quite clear about the dangers

Support for fracking is so counter to his expressed concern about climate change and about the environment.

[Maedhros]

40. Well, some experts have paid good money in the form of campaign contributions

in order to have their expertise acknowledged.

[treestar]

11. Only a know it all can afford to go through life without ever "trusting" the experts

Where they disagree, there is going to be even more difficulty in making decisions.

[cali]

17. When there is disagreement, shouldn't there at least be recognition of that?

And the evidence continues to mount that the exponential growth of fracking is bad news for the environment and human health.

Where there is evidence as strong as this, wouldn't it be wise to be cautious about the practice instead of ignoring the evidence?

[treestar]

20. Who is it that does not recognize disagreement?

You're basically stating your conclusions are the only good ones.

That's not going to convince Obama or most of the voters who don't really know much about an issue.

[cali]

23. No, I'm stating that there is significant evidence that fracking is

dangerous.


You? If President Obama says it's good than that's all you need.

[sabrina 1]

32. Maybe if we were seeing some money devoted to phasing out these horrible

earth destroying means of 'keeping the power on', going to some of the excellent plans that have been put forward to start building up Alternative Sources of energy, it would be easier to believe he is just 'stuck' with these policies.

Sort of like his total backtracking on Offshore Drilling, something we gave so much grief to Bush over he was never able to do what Obama did, because 'the Left' or at least some of them, have developed a blindness to things that were huge issues for them until recently.

18 days after he lectured us on how wrong the Left had been for 30 years on Offshore Drilling and how he had changed him mind after consulting with 'experts' on how SAFE those oil barges are now, implying that the 'left' had not kept up with the latest technology, we had the disaster in the Gulf, proving his experts to be tragically wrong. And the Left to have been right. But even after that, there was no admission of being wrong. A slap on the wrist to Oil Corps responsible for the deaths of 11 human beings and the untold, longterm damage to the environment.

[malthaussen]

35. Yep. Show me the money.

Although I do believe some government funds have gone to alternative energy providers? Wasn't there a bit of a scandal about that some while back?

But answer me this. Say you were President. (Horrible notion, I know; I wouldn't have the job for anything) You need to keep 330 million Americans (or whatever the current figure is) in cheap gas, cheap heating oil, and a largely-efficient energy grid (despite the odd 4-day power outage like the one I just experienced. How are you gonna do it? In the here-and-now? What sources are you gonna rely on? Today and tomorrow, not five years from now? I have to believe there is some element of "stuckage," if you will, whatever mendacity there may be in play that neither you nor I are really competent to judge.

But yeah. Some money would be nice. Some indication that there is a future plan that isn't just more-of-the-same.

-- Mal

[treestar]

10. Because one again, he does not accept your conclusions wholesale?

If you disagree with those who think it safe enough, why do you assume that they actually agree with you and are doing this out of some kind of ill will?

[cali]

13. want to post something that counters the facts that I posted?

The conclusions are those of experts.

[Rex]

77. Good luck with that. It will never happen.

Much easier to talk about YOU than the issue! The Crew is famous for that technique!

[Wilms]

14. Yep. Why would any fracking company or politician do things out of "ill-will"?

Cali needs to relax and watch FoxNews so she can be fair and balanced...like you!

[treestar]

19. you really think they are doing it to harm you or others?

And they don't think it's safe enough? Or anyone who disagrees with you does not really disagree with you and just wants to harm you and the planet?

The whole post is about how Obama is evil for disagreeing on this. Further it seems we are evil for even wondering why we should accept the conclusion wholesale.

I suspect things are more complex than that.

[Wilms]

22. You done putting words in my mouth?

I know it makes it easier for you to debate but can you instead please explain why you think fracking will lead to important medical discoveries?

(See. Two can play that game.)

[cali]

24. No, I said nothing whatsoever about President Obama being evil.

Do you agree that there is evidence that fracking is dangerous?

[rhett o rick]

66. Only if Pres Obama says so. You are wasting your time trying to get any

of them to commit on an issue.

[Laelth]

26. The people making money off of fracking don't care who it harms.

I expect the President to care. Is that too much to ask?

-Laelth

[rhett o rick]

29. Well until you explain how the "more complex" is helping the masses then

I am going to go with the "it's harming us meme.

[Enthusiast]

61. Well said. Me too.

[sabrina 1]

39. Do you know anything about the science of fracking, about the actual harm

we KNOW it has done to PEOPLE?

You speak as if the only person who matters here is a politician. I'll be happy to supply you with evidence of the extreme damage to the environment fracking is causing to PEOPLE, you know, HUMANS if you are unaware of the problems.

Because I cannot imagine ANYONE supporting something that is so harmful to the lives of human beings IF they actually know the facts about it.

[Enthusiast]

63. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it

has been established that fracking does, in fact, sometimes cause small earthquakes.

[sabrina 1]

69. Here's an article that addresses earthquakes and fracking:

Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes

Seismic activity in the Midwest started increasing around 12 years ago but picked up significantly in the past few years, says seismologist Bill Ellsworth, the lead author of a new USGS study examining potential links between fracking and earthquakes in the region. Since 1970, the baseline for earthquakes in the Midwest measuring above a 3.0 hovered at around 21 per year, but beginning in 2001, that number began to rise. There's been a "remarkable increase" in the past few years: The number of 3.0-plus earthquakes rose from 29 in 2008 to 50 in 2009, then to 87 in 2010, and in 2011 to a staggering 134. Something unusual was going on, but what? As Ellsworth and his colleagues at USGS ask in the study, "Is this increase natural or manmade?" And if it's man-made, is fracking—which has ramped up in the region in the past several years—to blame?

According to the study, the answer to the first question is "almost certainly." But the second one is a little more complicated. Though fracking does cause tiny tremors, the USGS scientists found no links between the process of fracking itself and the larger earthquakes that have been occurring more frequently. They did, however, notice that earthquakes have clustered around wastewater wells in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and neighboring states. Disposing of wastewater by pumping it deep into the ground is standard practice in many industries, including mining, chemical manufacturing, and oil and gas extraction, and the oil and gas industry alone operates tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells. But the recent surge of fracking activity, which uses millions of gallons of water to crack rock deep in the ground and release natural gas, has boosted the volume of wastewater being injected into the ground.

It's worth reading the entire article. It seems what they have discovered so far is that the small earthquakes are related to fracking, but are still working on answering the question regarding large earthquakes.

[Enthusiast]

73. Thank you, Sabrina.

That link does not take me to an article about fracking and earthquakes. But it does take me to a source of several related interesting articles.

[MisterP]

12. everyone lives downstream--but some can buy houses upstream

[malthaussen]

16. Or as Bernadotte, who owned the upstream house, said of Napoleon,

"I piss on him whenever I want."

-- Mal

[Drahthaardogs]

18. Anyone who has ever worked in the oil fields knows the main issue with fracking is Chinese steel.

Chinese steel is an inferior product. It is inconsistent and the tolerances are poor. Fracking is usually done deeper than fresh water aquifers. It is the high pressures and cheap Chinese steel that ruptures and causes leaks into the aquifer.

Reserve pits are the #2 issue with fracking and since entirely closed loop systems are readily available (but just more expensive) they are under utilized terribly.

If we made good U.S. steel and employed closed systems, fracking could be made infiniatley safer.

[cali]

25. What about the facts about fracking water usage and drought?

[Drahthaardogs]

41. Have you ever been in a gas field?

Pinedale? Vernal? Douglas Pass?

[TheKentuckian]

43. Supporters would have a lot more credibility if they would ever demand the "easy" answers

that would make disasters between impossible and rare be put in place before rolling the dice or at the very least as the price of future rolls but no, never always just beating the drums for the fracking or the deep water drilling or the nukes or mining practices with all you can eat sides of "ifs and buts" without a tooth to be found and lots of "who could have ever guessed?" phony hand wringing when and if the "magical" fixes that are reluctantly implemented predictably fail as well the goalposts are reset to some new and improved fix.

I also think there is at times a very human factor of shading to the side our bread is buttered on on these issues, not many will take a side that puts a serious dent in the viability of their own career path and/or income streams.

Tony Hayward is patently unlikely to put himself in competition for geology teaching gigs no matter what the evidence really says and even if he does, he will be a rare bird.

Extraction is probably one of the poorer natural fits with stewardship anyway, there is little in the way of tomorrow because once exploited the site has served it's purpose and is depleted forever, mixing this with the profit motive is automatically dicey and exploitation will inevitably become standard operating procedure as we see now.

Big picture consideration is logically excluded, strangled by the weeds of feeding the bottom line.

Then on another side, it seems that questions on the sustainability of the water usage go into a universal ignore folder, which leads me to think it is a disaster all by its self since there seems to be little in the way of soma like responses nor is it much better when someone happens to wonder what happens to all the sludge that comes from the various extraction techniques, some of the mining shit being really nasty and I suspect the truth is probably further from benefiting the seventh generation out than most would be comfortable with in the true light of day.

For profit extraction is theft from the commons to start with but socializing the downsides to the people and nature is wickedly shortsighted systemically, by definition and bound by charter such vision is beyond the scope of industry. Government is hypothetically supposed to play beat cop in the paradigm but is severely handcuffed in resources, expertise, technology, scope, and via corporate influence and capture to independently and realistically any such thing.

Then if by chance audits of submitted reporting or obvious debacle something is found, we see token (compared to the take and/or damages) fines.

[Drahthaardogs]

50. Federal Royalties are 12% on new gas leases.

That is by law. It is regulated by actual federal employees who check the meters regularly. I disagree that theft is common place. From my experience doing environmental work in the big fields out west on public lands, it is not.

Personally, I like and use energy and natural gas is quite a bit cleaner than coal or even nuclear in many ways. While all energy extraction carries risk, it could be mitigated. Directional drilling from one pad location to reach all downhole locations on a given lease are not only technologically doable, they should be mandated.

In addition, Chinese steel should be outlawed on federal lands. It is good environmental practice (safer product) and good domestic business (producing steel at home). I never understood the philosophy that pollution over China stays over China. I would rather see the products made here with good (albeit never perfect) environmental regulations where they could produce good manufacturing jobs.

Big business again buying inferior products and drilling on taxpayer's lands utilizing state water resources. I find the whole "JUST SAY NO" stance to be pointless. I much prefer a pragmatic "Yes, you can drill, but you need to do it the best way possible" to be a much better scenario.

In addition, we should be demanding big oil and gas operators build proper infrastructure. Those who oppose properly built pipelines do not seem to realize that the alternative is trucking. More than 1 gas field have achieved Title V Air status due to the trucking. Pipelines are preferable.

Unfortunately, so many people think they understand that which they do not, e.g. those who think diesel is a more dangerous product than gasoline environmentally speaking. They just do not know.

[Harmony Blue]

51. Chinese Steel isn't the only issue and

frankly that is small beans compared to the other problems with fracking.

[Drahthaardogs]

55. No its not.

Fracking is typically done very deep out west, well below potable water sources. Chinese steel ruptures under high pressure and spews fracking fluids and blow back into the shallow aquifers.

I spent four years of my life cleaning that shit up.

[cali]

56. what about the problems associated with fracking and drought?

furthermore, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence contradicting your claim. You don't address any of it- and it's in the OP.

[Drahthaardogs]

68. Who do you choose to believe

An academic or the opinion of drillers and rig hands? They all say the same thing. Chinee steel causes lots of problems with contamination. As for the droughts it uses a lot of water but they can recycle if they choose.

[cali]

75. scientists and researchers. I certainily don't believe the completely ANECDOTAL

shit from riggers and drillers.

good fucking grief.

[Drahthaardogs]

79. Except you do...

No offense, but I lived and worked in the Jonah and on the Anticline and some time in Vernal too. I AM a scientist published in a few peer-reviewed journals but I prefer to keep by boots on the ground because that is what I enjoy. I have also worked with
Susan Chaki the head of CDPHE for more than a few years. She is a tough cookie and a solid scientist as well. Yet you say her opinion is trumped by an academic from Cornell.

In addition, most drillers are hard core engineers or geologist and highly skilled and educated. If you have ever seen a blowout, watch when Boots N Coots arrive. These guys are like the fucking cavalry.

If I say Chinese steel is a problem, you can bet your ass its a fucking problem. I don't mince words and I don't bullshit. Since you do not seem to understand, let me explain something. Fracking usually occurs way down deep, thousands of feet below the aquifer. Most of the time, in confined aquifers. The only way groundwater (which is typically in the first 400 feet) can get impacted is from a breach in the system.

If you ever watch the movie GasLand, you will see how this happens. It is NOT fracking that causes the guy's water to light on fire. It is an improper seal in the annulus of the well that allows methane to percolate through his fresh water aquifer.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. The west is in a 14-year drought.

Reduced river flows mean increased pumping of groundwater for agriculture. Fracking requires quite a lot of water (estimates of water use for fracking last year: 97 billion gallons, which is equivalent to 297K acre-feet. That's enough water to supply a million people for a year. In an area where water is a scarce resource and there are emerging regional conflicts over reduced river flows due to drought and global warming and agricultural use. (For instance Texas is suing New Mexico claiming failure to deliver their alloted water under the Rio Grande Compact.) See here for instance: http://www.ceres.org/issues/water/shale-energy/shale-and-water-maps/hydraulic-fracturing-water-stress-water-demand-by-the-numbers

[pansypoo53219]

27. we need a better STRAW!

[solarhydrocan]

30. For the same reasons he supports mandating everyone to buy corporate insurance

without the promised Public Option

Why the surprise? He said himself his policies are Republican policies from the '80s
The Change thing was total and complete BS. It's that simple.

Obama: I'm a Moderate Republican Not a Socialist

He should get lots of credit for convincing lots of people to support what they never would have supported if an R was in office. Outside of politics, that's usually called FRAUD.

But Those that point it out are sometimes called RACISTS. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[truebluegreen]

44. Just out of curiosity,

and given that your screen name is solarhydrocan and you don't support Obama on fracking, why do you have a plug for Brian Schweitzer in your sig line?

I mean, I like him too but he is as bad or worse than Obama on environmental issues. eta: He was and maybe is a fan of so-called Clean Coal and is fine with Keystone. So what gives?

[solarhydrocan]

54. That's a great question

1. IMHO the most important thing is to stop these GOD DAMN WARS. Get OUT of Afghanistan NOW. The last 12 years have seen the biggest ripoff in all of history. Trillions for what? We'd be bombing and invading Syria now if Obama had his way. Schweitzer claims to be against these foreign occupations.

2. Schweitzer has done alot for wind in MT. See my sig. Anyone else for 2016 done anything similar?

3. To get names besides that horrible hillary out there.

4. He seems to be smart, and if he is indeed smart he may be able to learn new things and change his mind.

5. If or when someone better comes along I'll drop Schweitzer like a used kleenex. I'm not in love with him, he is the best alternative to the horrible hillary there is right now.

That could change tomorrow.

[truebluegreen]

72. Fair enough

although I think his support for fossil fuels here is the flip-side of the coin for his desire to put an end to foreign occupations.

I agree with you that hillary is horrible though.

[dionysus]

57. because hypocricy knows no bounds on DU...

[cali]

58. well, sure. it's hardly exclusive to DU

as E.M. Forster said:

"Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy"

[Jakes Progress]

33. 'Cause that's what reagan democrats do.

[cali]

34. Another disturbing thing about fracking is how much is done on public lands

http://grist.org/news/pennsylvania-to-start-fracking-sensitive-state-forestland/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-on-public-lands/

House Approves Bill to Fast Track Fracking on Public Lands

By a vote of 235-187, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday approved its latest giveaway to the oil and gas industry—a bill that would fast track the approval of fracking on public lands, according to Environment America.

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/21/house-approves-bill-fracking-public-lands/

Obama Administration Rushes To Expand Fracking On Public Lands, Despite Frightening Evidence
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/16/2471231/administration-expand-fracking-public-lands/

[malthaussen]

36. On the hopeful side,

... in PA the Supreme Court just recently tossed a law that gave the frackers the right to disregard local zoning ordinances. But the public lands are still fair game, which is a shame because PA once had the greatest system of parks and public lands in the US.

-- Mal

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Because...

increased US production of oil (even if it means destroying the environment and exacerbating water stress in drought-stricken areas) means two things: one, lower oil prices. Two, reducing US imports, meaning that the US is in a better position to use sanctions on Iranian oil as a political lever. It's all short-term thinking, and somewhat tied in with geopolitical considerations.

[DeSwiss]

38. I'll let the President tell you himself:

So you see, it's not because he's not worried about the health implications on the poor, the elderly, the infirmed, and the children. And its not because he's not worried about the environmental risks or the devastation that an inland BP-like oil spill would cause.

And it's got nothing to do with national security or the economy since all the oil goes to Europe and all the profits go to Canada and the Koch Brothers. Yes. He is enriching the Koch Brothers when he could throw every roadblock in the book at them. Instead, he helps them. The sworn enemies of democracy. So the only way I can see that his not caring about any of these things makes any sense, why none of these things seem to bother him, is because he just doesn't give a shit.

- For the life of me I can't understand why this is so hard for people to see. If his initials were GWB, we wouldn't have any problems understanding this at all. Maybe that's why. We just don't want to believe it. So we close our eyes. Which is exactly how we got in this position to begin with.......

K&R

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. All of what oil goes to Europe?

US crude oil exports: 61000 barrels a day. Any crude oil exported from the US to Europe is oil that was imported in the first place, not US-produced. See here and here.

[dreamnightwind]

76. Probably meant the Keystone XL oil

which is indeed going to be exported to Europe. I don't know what percent of it is for export, maybe someone else knows.

[Vashta Nerada]

46. Great question.

Fracking is the single-most environmentally destructive thing that can happen today. I'm worried about our future water supplies and NOBODY should be pro-fracking. NOBODY.

[cali]

47. I think it is too. I'm much more concerned about the explosive growth of fracking that Keystone

[Vashta Nerada]

48. As am I.

Fracking should NOT be allowed. I can't even think of any good circumstances where fracking should be a viable alternative to anything else.

It's mystifying why it's allowed.

[cali]

49. not just allowed, but encouraged, expedited and subsidized

[sadoldgirl]

52. I wonder though

If you think that in 50 years the planet cannot sustain life, would you care?

[cali]

53. that's not pertinent.

[sadoldgirl]

62. May be,but

That was Watt's explanation when he was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior.

[frwrfpos]

60. because he supports republican ideas and policies

this is just another slap in the face to the Democratic party by Obama. His education policies and appointments are equally as right wing and disastrous. Its a real shame

[bvar22]

65. Becuase...

[center][font size=7]Drill, Baby, DRILL![/font][/font]

[cali]

67. what rankles so, is that President Obama says the right things (frequently) about environmental

issues, but he does the opposite. And it's not only environmental issues.

Yet as his most ardent supporters frequently point out, poll after poll indicates that the vast majority of self-identified liberals supports him and his policies. Are liberals just easy to dupe or what?

[arthritisR_US]

70. He supports it because big money wants it and so what they want is what he does. nt

[reusrename]

71. He believes it is the solution for climate change.

I'm not kidding:

EXCERPT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SOTU ADDRESS

...Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades.
One of the reasons why is natural gas – if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change....


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/state-of-the-union-2014-speech-transcript-text-video-102763.html#ixzz2su3VBv95

[cali]

74. yep. that's deeply cynical, or deeply ignorant or denial

none are reassuring

[AgingAmerican]

78. It's that third way thing rearing its ugly head

He has adopted the RW "Drill baby drill®" meme. It's how the 'Third Way®' operate.

[cali]

80. kick

Forgot to mention that as part of the “fracking health” study. Frack Fires are too hot for local firefighters to do anything about it. So if the well is near a school, house, daycare center or tanker full of Canadian Tar Balls, best run. Fast. Welcome to Fracking Hell pilgrim.

The proposed setback of a well pad from a house in New York is 500 feet. In Dallas, it’s 1,500 feet. The proposed set back of everything else – a compressor, tank battery, de-gasser, etc. – from a house in New York is zero (0). So when one of these fracking wells goes up in flames, it’s Goodnight Irene for anyone in the neighborhood. And then, of course there’s the setback for the roughnecks on the rig . . .

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2014/02/11/and-then-they-explode/