Ain't it great to have an environmentally conscious President? Feds Approve More Fracking

[cali]

off CA coast.

And in case you haven't been aware of it, the Obama administration has been a huge friend to big oil and gas, particularly when it comes to fracking.


The federal government has approved three new fracking jobs off the shores of California as state coastal regulators voiced concerns about potential environmental impacts The work in the Santa Barbara Channel, site of a 1969 oil platform blowout, has not yet begun and it was not immediately clear when it would.

<snip>

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the AP found the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE, the federal agency in charge of offshore drilling, approved a new project last March.

The bureau on Wednesday confirmed that it greenlighted three other fracking plans by the company DCOR LLC last year on an oil platform about nine miles offshore. While new oil leases have been prohibited since the 1980s, companies can still drill from about two dozen grandfathered-in platforms.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-approve-fracking-off-california-coast-22486746

[RKP5637]

1. Eventually, we'll all be living in a chemical dump. ... not too hard to see where

it's all headed.

[ProSense]

2. Here is a

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the AP found the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE, the federal agency in charge of offshore drilling, approved a new project last March.

...piece that was posted yesterday (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024484308) that got no attention.

Briana Mordick’s Blog

EPA Releases Final Guidance for Fracking with Diesel

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released final permitting guidance for wells that will be hydraulically fractured with diesel fuel. The guidance contains many important protections, based on solid science and EPA’s long experience with underground injection – protections that in many cases are stronger than state rules...Unfortunately, EPA has not banned the use of diesel in fracturing fluids. But the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to protect drinking water from diesel fracturing. As such, we believe that it is crucial for EPA to begin a formal rulemaking process to develop legally binding regulations for hydraulic fracturing with diesel. Rather than writing new rules, EPA chose to regulate diesel fracturing under existing regulations – the so-called “Class II” rules – but those rules were written with different processes in mind. While the guidance contains important protections that specifically address the unique threats of diesel fracturing, states may choose not to adopt these protections, leaving drinking water at risk.

EPA regulates the underground injection of fluids – everything from hazardous waste to septic systems – through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). However, due to the so-called Halliburton Loophole in SDWA, created by Congress in 2005, EPA does not have the authority to regulate the underground injection of fluids for the purpose of hydraulic fracturing – except when diesel fuel is used in the fracturing fluid.

<...>

NRDC and a coalition of environmental groups submitted comments on EPA’s proposed guidance in August of 2012. Our primary recommendation was that EPA should ban the use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Given the potential health and environmental impacts, the use of diesel presents an unacceptable risk and should be prohibited. Alternatives that perform the same function as diesel are available, which is why a panel of experts found that there are no technical or economic barriers to banning diesel.

EPA made a number of important improvements recommended by NRDC between the draft and final guidance, including:

• Recommending that regulators ask drillers to submit information on the seismic history of a region, which can help address the risk of induced earthquakes.
  
  
• Recommending that regulators require drillers to perform important tests on the well casing and cement, to ensure that wells are constructed properly. Proper well design and construction are crucial to protecting drinking water.

Unfortunately, the guidance is still falls short in other areas, including:

• EPA reduced the number of chemicals that are considered “diesel fuels,” meaning that some types of diesel may not be covered by the rules.
  
  
• The guidance for how drillers should identify potential pathways through which contaminants could reach groundwater, called the “Area of Review” requirements, are too weak and leave drinking water at risk.

- more -

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bmordick/epa_releases_final_guidance_fo.html

[cali]

4. this is considererd a very minor move on the part of the EPA

[Vattel]

15. I consider it the bare minimum that EPA might have done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. By whom? ...

other than you and Vattel, of course?

[H2O Man]

34. By me

and thousands of others. "Fracking" and related environmental safety issues are one of the weakest points of the Obama administration.

It's an area where the President is sadly ill-informed by those around him. Hence, I am working on an effort to get Michelle Obama to meet with a small, select group of women. Fracking poses a huge health risk -- especially for children. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Mrs. Obama is -- among her many outstanding qualities -- a true and sincere advocate for children. If we reach her, we reach the President. And if he knows the truth, I am confident he will move in the correct direction.

[cali]

45. He knows the truth. It's almost crazy to claim he doesn't.

And if he doesn't, that's not good news either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. And rather than post/link to a poll ...

supportive of, or even indicating your conclusion that:

this is considererd a very minor move on the part of the EPA

You post a non-response. Typical.

[Scootaloo]

103. I don't know what it's "considered," but I can READ IT and tell it's a band-aid on a gut wound

If that. In fact i imagine anyone outsidethe oil industry who reads it would come to the same conclusion - thus Cali's approach. You're just coming off as someone who holds out on forming their own opinion until gallup tells them what's trending

That said, it's probably not fair to bash on Obama for this - it's not like we've had an environmentalist president since T. roosevelt - and even then his main concern was having places to shoot large animals.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. No ...

I'm one that holds off on forming an opinion until I have more to go on than what a couple DUers write.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. I agree ...

the Administration's position (or rather, silence) on fracking is something on which I disagree with them. And, I have problems with fracking, in particular, because it does nothing to move us to greener, renewable energy sources.

But I was asking for something very specific ... a link or post that supports the claim that the EPA's release of its final permitting guidance for wells that will be hydraulically fractured with diesel fuel, is seen as weak sauce by anyone other than, now three, DUers. Thanks

[H2O Man]

74. True, that.

Just three DUers. And, likely some other DUers will read this exchange, and agree with you -- after all, what the heck do three DUers know?

But a few will get the humor here. They'll recognize one of them three, perhaps from an essay Will Pitt authored a couple years back, or perhaps from some photos & news stories that just some DUer posted here. And they'll think, "Dang! 1StrongBlackMan don't know exactly who he is chatting with. That's the guy who has, among many other things, worked with EPA and DoJ lawyers on one of the biggest legal cases per toxic wastes in the past 15 years; who works with the attorneys from the top environmental protection organization, and top environmental law clinic, in the US of A; and who communicates with the hard-working, but frustrated honest employees at the EPA quite often."

DU is a curious place. There are some clowns here, lots of good people, and a few very serious individuals. Some folks know that, others don't.

The EPA's final permit guidance is very weak. I appreciate that you support this president. That's fine. However, this is an area where I feel confident you are rather unfamiliar. If it is important to you, take some time and do a bit of research. The EPA is like any other large bureaucratic agency: good people at most levels, corporate advocates-politicians at the top. Let's try a little test: what was the first EPA report on fracking requested by the House? What happened to the sections on the toxins used to frack? What Congressman tried, without success, to get the original report? And which mere DUer has a copy?

Peace, my friend,
H2O Man

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Pedigree and resume, aside ...

DU is a curious place. There are some clowns here, lots of good people, and a few very serious individuals. Some folks know that, others don't.

This is very true. Do I know who the "clowns" or "very serious individuals" are? No, I do not; but still does not respond to my question.

Am I informed on this topic? ... very minimally, and certainly not enough to take a test; however, I am informed just enough to know that I do not support fracking ... my support for the President, aside.

Simply put ... my reason for asking for the post/link was to get better informed, as no one, including yourself, has provided anything to support the proposition that "this is considererd a very minor move on the part of the EPA" or, the double-down statement, "by every enviornmental group and every industry group."

Another thing that makes DU a curious place ... When people make claims, and when asked to substantiate said claim, tell the questioner to "Look it up ... Do your own research", which is wholly unresponsive to the ask ... In fact, such a response (to me) is a sign that the questioned assertion has no/little support ... because if the claimer had such support, they would readily provide it ... if for no other reason, to prove/enhance their reputation as a learned person willing and able to support their assertions.

[cali]

44. by every enviornmental group and every industry group.

not to mention the media.


jaysus. do some research before embarrassing yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fracking-regulations-20140212,0,425571.story#axzz2tD9akaB3

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Umm ...

That's why I asked you to support your assertion, as I had not heard or read it from any but you.

I guess jaysus and I will have to do our own research on this because apparently you didn't even read the article that you presented to support your conclusion. If so, you might have noticed, embarrassingly, this line:

Still, environmental groups pushing for tighter oversight of fracking welcomed the initiative.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fracking-regulations-20140212,0,425571.story#ixzz2tEEmncFN

I would have thought that if "every enviornmental group and every industry group" had thought it the bare minimum, more would have come out to call it so; and the oil industry, wouldn't be asking the EPA to withdraw the Guidelines.

[cui bono]

76. Something is better than nothing.

For someone who claims to disagree with Obama about this you sure go out of your way to defend him on the very thing you say you disagree with him on.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Yes ...

In all cases, something in the right direction IS better than nothing. That is the complete point of my response.

I guess I possess a unique skill-set to DU ... I can disagree with a policy stance AND not refrain from denigrating an policy action in that policy area that I consider a step in the right direction.

Imagine that?

[cui bono]

91. How arrogant of you to think you are so unique and talented.

I prefer DUers who are not so afraid of hearing criticism that they defend everything one man does even when it is against the principles they like to think they stand for.

btw... I think you meant "refrain from" rather than "not refrain from".

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Please ...

I guess DU no longer recognizes snark.

I prefer DEMOCRATS, and people, in general, that don't feel the need to ignore the good (even if imperfect), to feed their constant out-rage.

And the fact that you, and apparently a couple others, can't distinguish supporting a specific policy, while disagreeing with the general policy direction, from "defending everything one man does even when it is against the principles they like to think they stand for" says a lot about you.

So maybe my "arrogance" is deserved? Maybe it is a unique skill-set on DU, if you are representative of DU.

btw... I think you meant "refrain from" rather than "not refrain from".

Yes. You are correct.

[cui bono]

94. One doesn't "deserve" arrogance. But you certainly do ooze it.

When you say you disagree with a policy of POTUS, then immediately go on to defend it, it is as I said.

Most of us wouldn't be outraged - nearly constantly - if POTUS wouldn't continue and escalate BushCo policies, reneg on his promise to be environmentally friendly, appoint Wall Street to his admin, hold secret back room meetings... etc... etc... etc... you know, TPP, KXL pipeline, whistleblower proscutions, drones. He is a huge disappointment and as such, deserves the criticism. If he acted like a real Dem we wouldn't have so much to criticize. He brings it on himself. Especially when he had such popular support when he took office, and what did he do? He worked for banksters and corporations instead of the people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Okay ... I will comply to binary thinking ...

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

President Obama and Democrats bad. Oh, wait ... too complex a thought ...

President Obama Bad.

Democrats Bad.

[Doctor_J]

119. This fails the laugh test, unfortunately

But the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to protect drinking water from diesel fracturing.

How's that working in WV?

[bowens43]

3. I forget, why was he a better choice than Mitt?

[Scuba]

5. Not the change I hoped (and worked) for.

[blue14u]

110. and yet we are considering

re-electing him in a skirt!

I'm depressed already..

[Scuba]

111. I'm still hoping for Warren. In the meantime, we need to hold the Senate.

[blue14u]

113. Hear hear!

Let's please continue to push for a choice!
Warren! 2016
I believe if we can, and have a very good chance to succeed. The House and Senate will be ours.
Then the shift toward Warren, and other less DLC third way candidates
will become the popular vote. I am sending positive energy around the world...
We can do it!
VOTING MATTERS! as per Cha!

[Doctor_J]

122. It's not going to be easy to hold the Senate when the president is driving away voters

with shit like this.

[Scuba]

130. Couldn't agree more.

[TheMathieu]

6. One of my major differences with the President is his all-of-the-above energy policy.

Not cool at all.

Fellow apologists, if you grew up in an area ravaged by extractive industries... you'd feel the same way.

[djean111]

8. Yes, I imagine it is quite easy to be coolly dismissive of fracking if it is not in one's back yard.

No skin in the game, just cheer-leading creds.
Sorry for your situation.

[Romulox]

13. Who would've thought that there'd be a downside to Obama's corporatist ideology?

[democratisphere]

7. Energy and banks rule the world

What ever they want they get and NOTHING else matters. Nothing like trashing our entire environment.

[okaawhatever]

9. Wow, how easy it must be for some folks to dismiss all that has been done for the environment

by this President. It's a shame that some people can't stop wallowing in their own self-pity to recognize it. The environmental issues have a long way to go, but I don't kid myself about how far we've come and the work it will take to get us where we need to go. Of course, I could just blame it all on the president and forget about the part all of us play.

[rwsanders]

10. Yeah, loved the part where ESA protections were pulled from the wolves.

[G_j]

19. a Bush policy embraced by this adminstration, now found to be based on unsettled science

Panel Finds Unsettled Science Behind Proposal to Lift Gray Wolf Protections, Comment Period Reopened


Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

http://m.livescience.com/43213-unsettled-science-gray-wolf-peer-review.html

By Megan Gannon, News Editor
Date: 07 February 2014 Time: 04:07 PM ET

The drawn-out battle over the fate of gray wolves in the United States continues.

An independent panel of experts said Friday (Feb. 7) there is wide disagreement about some of the science the Fish and Wildlife Service used to make its case for ousting gray wolves from the Endangered Species list. The review could hinder the FWS proposal to lift federal protections for the animals throughout much of the United States.

"It was a very clean process and we got a unanimous result," said Steven Courtney, one of the scientists charged with setting up the independent panel at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The panel was not taksed with deciding whether or not the gray wolf should be removed from the Endangered Species list. Rather, they were charged with determining whether the FWS recommendation to do so was supported by the best available science, explained Frank Davis, director of the NCEAS.

The experts' main complaint was that the FWS proposal relied too heavily on a 2012 study (published in the FWS's own journal North American Fauna), which determined wolves that once occupied the eastern part of the country were likely a genetically distinct species (Canis lycaon) from the gray wolves in question (Canis lupis). If this were the case, the FWS would not be responsible for ensuring the gray wolf's recovery in the eastern United States.

But scientists on the panel said the results of the 2012 study are not universally accepted or settled. The group decided that FWS officials "had interpreted the science that they used fairly, but there has been a lot of new science on the question of wolf genetics, and that science needs to be brought into that discussion," Davis told Live Science.

The FWS has now reopened its public comment period on the proposal, which it hopes to make a decision on by the end of the year.

..more..

Full Report:
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdf

Photo Essay:
link:http://m.livescience.com/40137-photos-gray-wolves-endangered-status.html|


```````````````````

TELL SECRETARY JEWELL TO DO WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS & PROTECT WOLVES

http://action.endangered.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16490&sp_ref=28752327.61.2579.f.0.2

Secretary Jewell has said she doesn't have a choice in delisting wolves. She says, "It’s about science and you do what the science says."

The panel of scientists commissioned to review the proposal has spoken and we now know that this plan is not supported by science.

In their words,"There was unanimity among the panel that the rule does not currently represent the ‘best available science'."

Tell Secretary Jewell to "do what the science says" and immediately withdraw the draft rule to delist gray wolves



http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=0D493E53-AC54-99DD-52400A7BAA5A6085
Press Release
Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal
February 7, 2014

Contacts:
Gavin Shire, 703-346-9123, [e-mail]


Independent scientific peer review report available for public review

Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.

The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California – Santa Barbara. At the Service’s request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Service’s proposal.

“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”

The peer review report is available online, along with instructions on how to provide comment and comprehensive links relating to the proposal, at http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073.

The Service will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.

The Federal Register publication of this notice will be available online Feb. 10 at http://www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.

[rwsanders]

38. I don't know if it can be blamed on Bush anymore...

A recent panel on the delisting excluded critics of the proposal even though they are experts in the field.

Also, I was really disappointed that the navy was allowed to set up a training range for anti-submarine warfare in the calving grounds of the northern right whale. I now that regular politics are convoluted and the president is not all powerful, but with the navy all he had to do was issue an order, "pick somewhere else".

Not entirely sure why endangered species issues get my blood up so quickly, but the wolf thing caused me to right in the Green Party candidates for the presidential election in 2012.

[G_j]

40. no it certainly can't!

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

It was clear where Obama's loyalties were when he appointed Ken Salazar Secretary Of The Interior.

[villager]

127. It was at that moment I realized we had a "Republican lite" on our hands...

But no Democrat in the White House, anymore, can really afford an affinity for wilderness, since that's an innately anti-corporate concept...

[countryjake]

68. +1 Thank you for all of that well laid-out info! n/t

[berni_mccoy]

11. Well said. Treatment of Democrats at DU is...

downright shameful at times.



It's easy for some to forget the mess the current administration was given, and that mess goes both deep and broad. If the admin does anything by executive order to fix problems, he's labeled as a totalitarian not just by the Teabaggers, but also by many in this thread. If he works within the law, he's not only not doing enough, but he's downright to blame for it.

No wonder good people don't run for office.

[okaawhatever]

17. thank you for that. I genuinely believe that much of the irrational criticism here on DU comes from

troll types here to divide us. I've been watching for patterns and it's become pretty evident. Electing a President is just one part of the process. We have a lot to fix, and the work will be hard but after we turn this country around from Republican policies it will be worth it. The good thing about losing so much is having so much to gain when things get better.

[cali]

46. for fuck's sake, how is criticizing the President's record on this, "irrational"?

[blue14u]

114. I agree!

How is ignoring something going to make it go away?
Just curious. Are we not to point out bad policy with any POTUS?

WTF!
BTW...I also cheer when I see positive movement from our POTUS!
Be fair and realistic please. Don't ignore bad policy or candidates when we see them.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place!

Also don't ignore the good stuff...
VOTING MATTERS..
2014 GO VOTE!
GOTV

[WorseBeforeBetter]

57. North Carolina Republicans destroyed DECADES of progress in a matter of MONTHS.

Republicans know what to do with power when they get it, while Obama and the Democratic Party blew it in early 2009. And only now, 5 years into office, has Obama discovered his magic pen. Many of DU's "emogrogs" suggested he use the executive powers available to him, but the "loyalists" pounced with every excuse under the sun as to why he couldn't. Now they're cheering the use of such powers. Funny how that works, eh?

[Laelth]

93. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[blue14u]

108. I am just suggesting

that maybe he didn't act because he had another
election he had to think about and win. EO is not a popular act,
not to mention we had a midterm we blew in 2010. Just sayin.
I too am upset about the policies he has held on to from the Bush administration. . I also am not to impressed with the RW appointments
he has chosen for his cabinet. In the end I support him. My other choice was a disaster. ..ie,romney.
I am struggling already about 2016. My choice it seems, is not going to change much in the way of a healthier and environmentally safer world policy wise..I could be wrong, but that's just how I see it right now.
If our POTUS has to use the pen to get things done then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps we will have even more work ahead. We don't know yet. I do feel that if we could get our First Lady's attention, we have a chance. Good job

[WorseBeforeBetter]

118. Obama has no problems with decisions that wouldn't be "popular"...

with some in his own party, right? He's OK with unpopular.

EOs aren't "a popular act"? Tough, I'd say to the critics. Historically, look at the numbers:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Somehow, I don't see Teddy R., Wilson, FDR, or Truman concerned about whether or not they are popular.

Much of 2010 can be attributed to the ACA. Jobs and the economy were the most important issues to voters, yet Obama focused most on healthcare "reform." He did a lousy job selling it, of talking up its benefits and positive economic impact (yes, Virginia, there is a bully pulpit...). Allowing Teabaggers to frame his signature legislation is mind-boggling. He's said he'd stake his presidency on the ACA, why wouldn't he come out swinging against critics prior to the midterms?

2016 matters, but 2014 matters more. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) is in a tight race and if she loses, Obamacare will be one of the primary reasons. A majority in this state HATE IT. How much of an impact will the ACA have on other Senate races with "vulnerable" Democrats?

What exactly is it that you think that Michelle Obama can do for us?

[blue14u]

123. I agree with you

2014 is critical Extremely critical.. That's not hyperboil either. I am serious..
I push every single day for people to get the hell up off the couch or whatever AND GO VOTE!
Damn! .. Stop bitchin and go vote! btw, your not in the 1% so stop voting like you are!
Voting is fundamental. It is linked to the "freedom" I hear people complain they are loosing....If we don't stop this train wreck, we deserve to have no water.
All I drink is water. I am scared shitless I won't have enough or it will be poisoned. If your not scared then your not paying attention..
As for the First Lady. She is a monster when
it comes to children's future and health.


She has our Presidents ear.. If we can get
her attention on this matter we have more
of a chance to get our POTUS to wake up to
the damage fracking is doing to our planet.
Maybe it is not doable, but we can't just sit idly by and hope for the best. I have a
passion for politics. It is in my blood. I can't
sit by and not try to make a difference. No
one should. I dismiss people who say they
don't care, or especially the one's who don't
vote. Are you kidding me? What the hell is
wrong with them?
I'm not trying to start somehing with anyone here on DU. I am just very concerned about our future and my child's future. All of our children deserve better than this. I will fight till my last breath to leave a better world for her and others. I can only hope I live long enough to see it.
If our President uses the EO to get things rolling in a good direction I am behind him all the way.. I have no problem with "it's unpopular" . I don't care. Just do it! If it's legal, and constitutional it is his duty to use the pen.Go for it!
The ACA you believe is the downfall in 2010? You must believe it will be the downfall in 2014 for Dems. NC hates it? Well Kentucky, Virginia, and NY disagree with your state. I am sure I missed some states that agree with it. It's the law now. What are you going to do about it?
Thanks for the link. I know the comparable number's. I am awake..

[WorseBeforeBetter]

125. What am I going to do about it?

Move back north. And just as an FYI, I run to the polls, even when living in the ultra-blue bubble known as the DC suburbs.

I'm not trying to start anything, either. I'm just ticked that the ACA helped cause the 2010 and 2012 GOP takeover in NC. THEN, we don't get Medicaid expansion and the much-needed jobs that were to follow. THEN, we may lose 2014. If Kentuckians like Obamacare and boot McConnell, God bless 'em. I'm just wondering about other tight Senate races with vulnerable Democrats, like Arkansas, Alaska, and Louisiana.

And as an added bonus of the GOP takeover, the NC good ol' boys, with the help of former Halliburton and PCS Phosphate execs, have a fracking hard-on for this state.

[frylock]

72. some of us "troll types here to divide" have been here for over 10 fucking years..

were we troll types during the darks days of bush when we were here criticizing much of the same policy?

[okaawhatever]

73. You aren't a troll type. Sorry, you're just a regular person with an opinion who expresses it.

If you're divisive it's emotion, not design. You aren't one of the evil ones. Plus I haven't caught you using right wing expressions by accident, and none of the other folks have found your other profile over at the neo-con site.

I don't think people who disagree with me or the President, or the Democratic party are trolls. It's like a statistical norm or curve, when you have serial outliers you tend to notice.

[Doctor_J]

78. Now anti-fracking is "trolling". Just like being against torture and war and mandatory for-profit

health insurance and corporate schools is trolling.

[frylock]

83. amazing, isn't it?

what are these people going to do once Obama is out of office? do they even know about term limits?

[cui bono]

86. If you really want to "turn this country around from Republican policies"

you better start calling Obama and ask him to stop perpetuating them.

[neverforget]

100. It's not "irrational criticism" to be against fracking

especially when there is evidence that a new fracking project has been approved by the Administration.

"Troll types"? To be against fracking?
Sorry but some things are just more important than unquestioning loyalty to a party or President.

[okaawhatever]

102. I was making general statements about certain types of behavior. Being against fracking, drones

big oil, none of that is what I would consider irrational criticism. If you say, for example, President Obama has done nothing for the environment. I still don't consider that irrational if it's an honest opinion. When you say the same couple of things, over and over, without any support and ignoring facts and data to the contrary, that's irrational criticism. IMHO.

It's like someone saying the other day that Obama and the dems accomplished nothing during the two years they were in the majority. That is an irrational statement for someone who is an active poster on a political website. There is too much evidence to the contrary. You don't have to like what was accomplished, but making the claim repeatedly that "nothing was done" is IMHO an irrational response.

[neverforget]

104. Then why did you use that irrational criticism in this thread?

How do you know if one's opinion is an honest opinion? How do you decide that?

I'm against fracking. It's environmentally destructive and it's a terrible use of water. Is that an honest opinion?

What was done was an approval of fracking in areas that haven't seen it. Criticism of that policy is warranted. That's what is being done here.

[cui bono]

77. But you're confusing DINO's with Dems. n/t

[blue14u]

116. Humm,

"no wonder good people don't run for office"
Interesting statement...
We will see 2014 AND 2016!

[Romulox]

14. LOL. Without "the List!", your post falls flat. nt

[rwsanders]

39. I think the list was included.

Just accept it so we aren't being "trolls" or "divisive".

[ProSense]

42. Here's "the list"

<...>

A success on climate compared to previous presidents? Or to a possible President Mitt Romney? Well, of course. Clinton and Gore bungled it and George W. Bush crammed it forcefully out of sight. Mitt Romney would have done doodly-squat. (And no, John McCain wouldn’t have done anything either.) Compared to nothing, Obama’s done a fantastic job.

<...>

http://grist.org/politics/is-obama-the-environmental-president/

Lisa Jackson to Leave EPA: Earthjustice Statement

Statement from Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation Patti Goldman:

“America owes Lisa Jackson a debt of gratitude for her work to protect the public's health from polluters and their allies in Congress. For her efforts to clean up pollution and better protect the environment and public health, she faced a steady barrage from members of Congress and the industrial polluters who back them. Her detractors are the same people who told us taking lead out of gasoline in the 1970's would break the economy and that taking acid out of acid rain in the 1990's would ruin the country. In both cases, the environment and economy were strengthened and this is the approach Lisa Jackson took. There is a lot of unfinished business started by Jackson that the next EPA director will need to attend to. Whoever it is, they'll need the support of the President and they'll need to be ready for a non-stop barrage of attacks from the chemical, industrial and fossil fuel industries and their allies in Congress.

“After 17 years of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally regulated mercury and other toxic pollutants coming from power plants. After a decade of litigation from Earthjustice and others, it was Lisa Jackson who supported and implemented regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. After more than a decade of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally implemented the first regulation of mercury from cement kilns all over the country.”

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/lisa-jackson-to-leave-epa-earthjustice-statement

You see, Obama's environmental legacy is going to be measured against that of prior President's, not those who believe his entire Presidency is a failure.

LOL!

[okaawhatever]

49. +1000 nt

[cui bono]

80. Quite a low bar you set for Obama there... he's done better than nothing.

And is his attempt at pushing through KXL pipeline more than or less than nothing? TPP (yes, that affects the environment)? Monsanto exec appointed to EPA? More than or less than nothing?

Comparing what he's done to what Mitt would (speculatively) have done.

LOL!

[ProSense]

81. Yup, and just think, he's a step up above his predecessors.

LOL!

[cui bono]

84. Not on everything.

Unless you include furthering their RW policies.

LOL!

[ProSense]

85. On everything, including

cool.

[cui bono]

87. And spying on American citizens, prosecuting whistleblowers, drone strikes, free trade...

[ProSense]

88. Oh, that

ODS

[cui bono]

95. So you don't refute those issues then? When you resort to petty name calling you've clearly lost.

The argument and the plot.

[ProSense]

96. So

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, which one did your prefer?

[truedelphi]

99. consulting the internet medical dictionary -

ODS could mean:

Ordinary Dietary Supplements
Organized Delivery System
osmotic demyelination syndrome
octadecyl silica gel
octadecylsilane
octadecylsilanized
octadecylsilica
octadecylsilyl
octadecylsilyl silica
Odd Sex <------ ??
Odysseus
optical densities
Osteogenic Disorder Shionogi
Oswestry Disability Score

Still don't know which one you mean, even given some context.

[FSogol]

59. +1. Gotta agree. n/t

[cui bono]

79. What has he done that is positive for the environment? n/t

[ProSense]

106. The

"What has he done that is positive for the environment?"

...war on coal.

Last week, it was all smiles at Beyond Coal when the retirement was announced of the giant, much-protested Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts.

That's the 150th U.S. coal-powered generating plant to go that route since the beginning of 2010. It's the largest remaining coal-burner supplying electricity in New England. It's also one of the filthiest of the nation's power plants, ranked as 14th nationwide out of 378 by the NAACP for its negative impacts on minorities and people of modest means. Protesters have sought to shut the place down for years. In July, 44 were arrested for acts of civil disobedience at the plant.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/13/1245351/-Shutdown-of-150th-coal-plant-reminder-that-miners-and-related-workers-need-a-just-transition

Federal Investigation Follows North Carolina Coal Ash Spill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024496344

[cui bono]

115. I like the federal regulations on coal.

So why do you think he's pro-fracking? Surely he's aware of the damage and waste, no?

And what about the KXL pipeline? Why is he not adamantly against that?

And how about nuclear energy?

And why did he appoint a Monsanto exec to the EPA?

Oil drilling on federal and native american land is up under Obama.

He can only be considered to have done good for the environment if the sum total is beneficial and not detrimental to it. So I would hardly characterize him as a president that has done a lot for the environment.

[Doctor_J]

121. Hasn't one of his talking points been to "pursue clean coal"?

there is no such thing.

[blue14u]

112. I don't see pointing

out bad policy as dismissive of the work our POTUS has done. I see this as

an area we still need to work on. If we ignore this it will continue.
Heads up!
Fracking , simply put, is not good policy. It destroys our environment, causes our water supply to be at risk, and sink holes and earthquakes need attention.
Please don't dismiss the changes we are fighting for. The POTUS has a lot on his plate. Attention to fracking needs to be on that plate please.

[NorthCarolina]

12. Orders from on-high....

let there be fracking. The people may have brown water, but the oligarchs have Perrier.

[n2doc]

16. Like we ever had a choice

I can't think of anyone since Al Gore who made it past the primaries and would have done differently, or worse.

[Fearless]

18. Yeah... "great"

[fadedrose]

20. Actually, it ain't great..

Aren't you satisfied that Obama can sing, dance, and speak better than anyone he ran against? Still worried about the planet and silly things like that?

Me too.

Look into that crystal ball of yours and let me know who is apt to do the least damage as president in 2016.

We are waiting for your response, love . . .

[fadedrose]

21. PS You got a lot of hearts...people here have great judgment

[blackspade]

22. And the destruction of the environment continues....

Apparently most folks don't get that the natural gas produced does not stay in the US lowering our prices.
Rather, it is shipped overseas to other markets. That keeps prices here high.
Once this shit comes out of the ground it is owned by the oil corps not us.
This is exploitation of the lowest sort in the quest of ever more short term profits.

Thanks for posting Cali.

[DhhD]

23. Anybody have information on how fracking is adding to his portfolio?

[Brigid]

24. Today West Virginia, tomorrow the whole country.

[L0oniX]

25. Sad thing is that we can't keep using traditional forms of energy and expect a clean environment.

There is no alternative energy that can replace what we use and what we use is not a finite source. We can't live in this structure without transportation and that demands oil. We can't all live in the north without heat and its sources of energy. We blame the suppliers when they screw up our environment but we demand the supply ...and we can't solar our way out of this without a mass die off of the population via wars, starvation and exposure. Take one huge problem ...water. What are we going to do ...run pipes from Lake Michigan to the entire nation? Truck water nationwide?

Not that I want this to happen but when fracking ruins the drinking water supply for NYC people will wake the hell up somewhat ...then go back to sleep ...because there's nothing anyone can do about finite resources and the means necessary to acquire them. The train has left the station.

[ProSense]

29. Here's a

"There is no alternative energy that can replace what we use and what we use is not a finite source."

...good piece: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024493290

[QC]

26. Talk like Bobby Kennedy, govern like Dick Cheney.

That's been a very successful strategy for our president. Why stop now.

[840high]

33. ...

[Chorophyll]

55. Yeah, he's JUST like Dick Cheney.

I'm not in favor of fracking, and Obama is a disappointment in some areas, but hyperbole is hyperbole.

[woo me with science]

62. Yep, party has become mainly a tool of the One Percent in both parties

to keep the people divided while the same corporate direction is maintained from administration to administration.

[PatrynXX]

27. yeah and if your for Hillary

She's totally in the open about this. You might as well work for the Oil Companies. Main complaint I had about Bill Clinton. was never pro environment.. Oddly enough that still belongs to this guy who wasn't a crook. smh

If she was President now that XL pipeline woulda been approved a long time ago. I'll never vote for her I will spit on this Yes I'll vote but I'll die first before voting for her.. as president. as anything else fine as president give me Elizabeth Warren or something

[cali]

47. lol. not for Hillary as most everyone here knows.

[badtoworse]

30. Fracking is not going away. It's time to accept that

The focus should be on insuring it's done safely. That means the best well casing designs and insuring that fracking water is handled safely and recycled to the maximum extent possible.

[bread_and_roses]

37. Fracking cannot be "done safely"

Anymore than can any of the extractive industries. So no, it is not time to "accept" anything. In fact, it is literally insane to "accept" using and polluting millions and millions of gallons of fresh water.

[badtoworse]

48. I like the idea of having gasoline, reasonably priced electricity and natural gas to heat with.

Renewables won't supply those needs in sufficient quantities for decades, if ever. That means extractive industries are needed for the forseeable future. Fight an unwinnable battle if you want to, but I'll focus on safety and minimizing water use.

[bread_and_roses]

58. by the time your "decades" roll around ....

.... the earth is likely to be damn near uninhabitable. We'll have destroyed the ecosystem. No matter - I have no hope that the requisite steps will be taken in time. Your proposed mitigations will be as effective as the roughly 1% of waste that's recycled - in other words, not at all.

[TheKentuckian]

133. Gas now for no water later, fucking stupid and anti - stewardship. FUCK THE FUTURE!

may as well be your rallying cry.

I swear some won't be happy until the world is the new Venus.

[badtoworse]

134. I have confidence that technology will be developed to provide us with both

Opponents of fracking offer nothing by way of a solution that works in the here and now.

[TheKentuckian]

137. Supporters of fracking have no solutions for the damage done in the here and now or in the future

aside from statements of faith.

I think solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and conservation are orders of magnitude ahead of your optimism of forthcoming technological advancements that will magically create potable water, undo massive extinctions, detoxify the oceans, clean the air, restore damaged lives, and undo the suffering of man and beast.

More suicidal madness from the status quo posse who won rather deny existence to the future of every creature on Earth than to just to at least stop digging deeper and deeper holes we are expected to fly out of by magic and utter dependence on what dug the grave in the first place.

No, you don't seem to give a damn, smugly satisfied that your time will be up before the bill comes due transferring your downside to posterity and the habitat.

[badtoworse]

138. If people followed your line of thinking, we'd still be living in caves.

Every energy technology we have today has seen substantial improvement in both efficiency and impact on the environment sice it was introduced. Fracking will be no different.

[jwirr]

31. Many of us have taken a small step this fall when natural gas prices went sky high. We stopped

heating with it and changed to other sources. Now we should make the bigger step. We put in our natural gas space heater for emergencies only. Unfortunately that goal went by the way when we found out we like the flames. We need to realize the damage we were doing.

In fact this winter has really made us think about weatherization measures and other conservation measures we can take.

[hugo_from_TN]

63. What other sources did you change to?

[jwirr]

65. Good guestion. I do not own the home I live in and they changed to using their electrical heat and

they did a lot of conservation things like plastic on the windows, turning the thermostat down to 65, etc. They have a wood stove that they took out because of a chimney fire but have not put it back in. That may be the next step.

[heaven05]

32. ain't it great!!!!!

I would have liked more environmental activism on his part. But, the corporations run america, not presidents or unbought people in his administration. Just remember if he posed a real threat to corporate power and profit, he'd be 'retired'.

[raouldukelives]

35. Yeah, it's grand. I'm one of those "one issue" voters nowadays. Climate Change being it.

The only way available to battle climate change is individually. We will not see a leader who is willing to go against Wall St. Or if we do, they will not be allowed to get within sniffing distance.
For those people who genuinely care about fresh water, wildlife, oceans & forests all they can do is ensure they themselves do not financially support or gain from any corporation. The more money Wall St has, the more damage they will do.
Until they are brave enough to face reality, I will face it for them.

[stupidicus]

36. another reason I think climate change

is gonna be the biggest blemish on his legacy

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Add these into the leases OK'd -

in Monterrey County and O is sure as heck telling CA to fuck off. Apparently DC has forgotten several things about CA: we are riddled with earthquake faults both onshore and off, and we have serious, longstanding water issues.

Solar and wind are THE ways to go in this State -- keep your crappy gas and oil.

[pa28]

43. Spiking the EPA's own report connecting fracking to water contamination was big clue.

It's very clear who this administration works for and it's not you or me.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/17/obama-epa-shut-down-weatherford-tx-shale-gas-water-contamination-study/

[struggle4progress]

50. Did you comment on these permit applications when they were submitted?

[NCTraveler]

64. Would that hinder or lessen her comments here?

Would that take away her ability to speak on the issue?

[struggle4progress]

66. Democracy isn't a spectator sport

[NCTraveler]

67. And Cali appears to not be a spectator.

You avoided any answer. What point does your original post have?

[struggle4progress]

69. To have any impact on agency actions, it's necessary to comment on proposed agency actions

That may, for example, confer standing to sue if the agency doesn't take into account important comments

No comment on agency actions, followed by whining about the President, adds up to nothing more than whining

[cui bono]

82. So what does that have to do with posting a thread on DU? n/t

[neverforget]

101. the President was criticized that's what.

And you're just whining about fracking. Embrace the dirty energy and undrinkable water because Obama approved it. Never mind the drought or earthquakes in California, Obama approved it so that's all that matters. If you're against fracking then you have ODS.

[struggle4progress]

120. You can't influence agency decisions without commenting on agency actions

I sorry if this seems to a subtle and tricky concept, but perhaps you will find it making sense to you after you have thought a bit more

[neverforget]

132. It's public policy from the administration.

Maybe if you gave that some thought....

[woo me with science]

126. "The President was criticized, that's what."

A+ for correctly identifying The Main Idea.

[treestar]

52. What are the legal standards for approving these jobs?

I doubt they are authorized to deny each and every one just because they don't like it (if they didn't, whoever makes the decision).

It would be like a "pro life" judge denying every abortion to a minor in a state where minors had to get parental consent unless they could prove it would be dangerous and they were mature enough. Just because he is against abortion would not mean he could deny every request just based on that. He'd have to use the law.

[Coyotl]

53. Ain't it great having Bush/Cheney environmental laws and an obstructionist GOP House

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Why did AP have to go throught FOIA to get the information? Was it secret?

If so, why?

[theHandpuppet]

61. I warned folks about these kinds of issues years ago...

... but at the time, no one was interested in hearing it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/92

If anyone thinks this administration would buck the oil/gas/mining interests, you are sadly ignoring the record. As a resident of WV I know just how deep those pockets are and it doesn't matter whether or not you have a (D) beside your name.

[progressoid]

70. but but but...

I coulda been President Palin!!11!

[frylock]

71. why not? we've got water to burn here in california.

it's coming out of our ears.

[Doctor_J]

75. You don't understand chess

and anyway it's all the liberals' fault. If we had a Dem congress then the president wouldn't be so Republican.

Or, something

[Egalitarian Thug]

97. And in California, no less. A state well-known for its geologic stability.

What could possibly go wrong?

On the bright side, the billionaires will make more money, so it's all good.

[Vashta Nerada]

107. Droughts everywhere and aquifers are drying out, but hey, let's allow more fracking!!!!!111111

[frwrfpos]

109. recommend

[theHandpuppet]

117. And don't look to the EPA for help

Ohio EPA, health officials dismiss radioactive threat from fracking
Other states studying health risks in waste

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/01/27/radioactive-threat.html

[blue14u]

124. This is a very

excellent thread.. I enjoyed reading every post. I learned so much..
Now go vote 2014!
This
VOTING MATTERS!

[bobduca]

128. no defenders of this policy?

I hope that the faithful arrive soon with talking points...

[JoeyT]

129. Nope, just the usual.

Screaming about how anyone that criticizes him about anything is mentally ill using an insult initially created to defend George Bush over pretty much the same shit. A few nailed themselves to crosses in an attempt to feel persecuted. The List was brought out. The ROFL smilies were used. Pretty much the same response every criticism gets.

You don't look to Scientologists for rational discussion about Hubbard's science fiction work.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. PO will be in California today, as a matter of fact.

No one knows where he'll actually go to in Fresno but I'm guessing the media will be shut out and there will be no questions allowed about fracking. Sounds familiar? Maybe we'll have "free speech zones" just like in the good old days of Obama's good friends, the Bushes.

It has taken California DECADES to SLOWLY bring back the environment off the coast of California. Sea lions are coming back as are the otters. The kelp beds off California's coast are VITAL. Can you imagine what will happen WHEN frack water is released ("accidentally&quot ? All of that work by thousands and thousands of people, gone. All for nothing.

I can't believe Californians are just going to stand by and let this happen. And where the fuck is Brown?????

[MisterP]

135. and now every Californian will have to pay for 5,000 gal/year

but don't worry, we'll get DU icons for the program

[Pretzel_Warrior]

136. Your headline overstates what is taking place

As usual

[Sunlei]

139. "new oil leases have been prohibited since the 1980s" "grandfathered-in platforms. "

Same thing for the thousands of old capped gulf oil wells, the Corps can come back to them whenever. Nice loophole laws the good old boys gave their oil buddies.!