White House Executive Action! Sustainable Shale Gas Growth Zones.

[cali]

Because what we really need are more subsidies for big oil and gas. What we really need are lots more fracking wells in every region of the country.

<snip>


The speech was accompanied by a proposal to create "Sustainable Shale Gas Growth Zones" in the United States.

This murky shale gas zone proposal is found in the White House list of "Key Executive Actions the President Will Take in 2014." The document doesn't provide any details on these zones or say how many there would be, but it does say that the zones will be places where "shale gas is developed in a safe, responsible way that helps build diverse and resilient regional economies that can withstand boom-and-bust cycles and can be leaders in building and deploying clean energy technologies." It also mentions that the federal government will offer technical assistance to states and local communities to ensure that shale gas is developed in "the right way."

The last thing that we need from the federal government is an incentive to promote more fracking. The reality is that we already have "shale gas zones" across the country—but they are sacrifice zones where ordinary Americans have already put their health, quality of life, property and sometimes livelihood at risk, and fracking is taking place across the country in ways that are not "safe" or "responsible." This proposal sounds troubling because natural gas is not sustainable, strong federal regulations are not in place, and our country is still too dependent on dirty fuels. Our country does not need more "shale gas zones;" we need protections from an oil and gas industry running amok.

<snip>

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/white_house_calls_for_growth_o.html

[ProSense]

1. This

"Because what we really need are more subsidies for big oil and gas. What we really need are lots more fracking wells in every region of the country. "

...isn't about "subsidies."

Promoting Safe and Responsible Production of Natural Gas. Natural gas is helping to reduce carbon pollution, and the Administration is taking steps to make production safer. The Administration is developing new environmental standards for oil and gas drilling on public lands and will continue to invest in research to ensure safe and responsible natural gas production. Under the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Administration is also developing a multi-sector strategy to reduce methane emissions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sotu_2014_main_fact_sheet.pdf

In fact, the President called for an end to oil and gas subsidies.

Also from the OP.

Instead of focusing on ever increasing fossil fuel extraction, the nation should, as NRDC President Frances Beinecke said, be cutting carbon pollution, curbing dangerous energy production, and shifting from dirty fossil fuels to clean energy solutions.

From the link in that paragraph:

The single most important thing we can do to confront climate change is reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Last night, President Obama reiterated his commitment to have the Environmental Protection Agency implement those carbon pollution limits.

This is an historic turning point. Power plants kick out 40 percent of the carbon pollution in our country. The U.S. limits mercury, arsenic, and soot from power plants. And yet, astonishingly, there are no national limits on how much carbon these plants can dump into our atmosphere. That’s not right, and the president intends to fix it.

The EPA is scheduled to release draft standards for existing power plants in June that must deliver deep reductions here at home and set the stage for U.S. climate leadership abroad. In the coming months, NRDC will rally public support for strong standards and make sure the administration meets its deadlines.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/obama_reaffirms_commitment_to.html

President Obama Announces New Truck Efficiency Standards
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521194

[cali]

2. bwahahahahaha.

defend and squirm. squirm and defend.

bull.

[ProSense]

3. So faced with the fact that this isn't about subsidies, you laugh?

"bull"

No, it's a fact that debunks the claim you made. It has absolutely nothing to do with subsidies.

LOL!

[cali]

4. it is indeed about subsidies and expanding corporate "rights"

they haven't elaborated on what they will be but what the fuck do you think such zones are all about, pro?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196790-natural-gas-big-winner-in-speech-to-green-groups-dismay

[ProSense]

7. So you move away from the PDF and link to an article that has nothing to do with subsidies

to prove your inaccurate claim?


"they haven't elaborated on what they will be but what the fuck do you think such zones are all about, pro? "

So you made up your own description? It has nothing to do with subsidies.

[oldhippie]

15. Sounds like a subsidy to me .....

... and will continue to invest in research to ensure safe and responsible natural gas production.

Hint: "invest" means "spend", to the benefit of the fracking industry. That's a subsidy.

[ProSense]

17. That is not a "subsidy"

to the oil and gas industry. Here's the rest:

The Administration is developing new environmental standards for oil and gas drilling on public lands and will continue to invest in research to ensure safe and responsible natural gas production.

More:

Establishing an Energy Security Trust Fund to Fund R&D for Advanced Vehicle Technologies. In addition to urging Congress to repeal the $4 billion in subsidies that taxpayers provide the oil industry each year, the President has called on Congress to establish an Energy Security Trust and enact reforms to promote diligent oil and gas development on federal lands. The Energy Security Trust proposal has broad bipartisan support, including retired admirals, generals and leading CEOs, and focuses on shifting our cars and trucks off oil. This $2 billion investment in a range of cost-effective technologies – like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, hydrogen, and domestically produced natural gas – will be drawn from revenues generated from federal oil and gas development. Establishing a dedicated source of funding will allow the Energy Department to maintain targeted and sustained investments that are catalytic and directly advance U.S. energy security.

[oldhippie]

18. Still a subsidy .......

.... regardless of your spin and pretty pictures.

[ProSense]

19. Yeah, OK.

LOL!

[cali]

6. just for you pro. it's perfect for you, pro. hope you enjoy it, pro

I also think you should move to a big fracking area because you love it soooo much.

[ProSense]

8. Yeah, that

video is going to change the bogus claim you made in the OP into a fact.

"just for you pro. it's perfect for you, pro. hope you enjoy it, pro"

[ConservativeDemocrat]

13. Cali, you'd be a lot more persuasive if you didn't LIE about the President...

You could have made your point in a way where you merely said that this wasn't a good idea, sends, the wrong message, the opposite message should be sent about fracking, etc., but you go ahead and completely ruin it by deliberately stating a falsehood.

There are, actually, a lot of rural communities that are scared to death over fracking. Nobody wants flammable drinking water. So this is a message that can resonate. But if you're going to actually pitch this successfully, you have to not sound like the FOX News of the left. Cry wolf too many times, tell too many falsehoods, and people stop listening even when you actually have a point.

-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cali]

16. I don't lie about him.

and he is a big big supporter of fracking and he's been a big supporter of the industry- including voting for the Halliburton loophole in the 2005 energy bill that excluded these fucks from many environmental regulations.

oh, and you don't live in reality, so it's rather amusing to see you make that claim in every post, conservative.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

20. ProSense called you out on this, and she's 100% correct...

You keep trying to evade the deliberate untruth you put in this message by talking about other things, and it's plainly obvious why you are doing so - because you can't defend what you wrote.

Again, let me just reiterate that talking about non-existent subsidies doesn't make you more persuasive.

Neither is your stating that the President "voting for the Haliburton loophole" when the truth is that Obama opposed that amendment. He voted for the overall Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included subsidies for renewables such as wind and solar, added tidal energy plants to the list of renewables, made geothermal more competitive with fossil fuels, increased biofuels, prohibited mercury balasts, stopped drilling in ANWAR, etc. Like all actual bills, it was a compromise, though it ended up passing 88 to 12.

And as President, Obama's EPA has reopened the study about fracking. And this has caused the Oil and Gas industry to be not particularly happy.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for you if you used referenced facts and reasonable judgement in a critique, rather than made up stuff you just pull out of your ass.

Seriously, you can't even be bothered to tell the truth in your personal attacks against me. It's eminently clear you're not really "amused" by my tag-line (which was invented as a slam against Cheney, BTW). You're really angered.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Champion Jack]

5. " It also mentions that the federal government will offer technical assistance ...

....to states and local communities to ensure that shale gas is developed in "the right way."
There is no right way, which might explain why they are in such a rush to drill. Around here they're drilling and capping, but the collateral damage to people living around it is the same, property values are plummeting, quality of life from noise, air and water pollution are sinking. People who can, are leaving.
Makes you wonder if they really are trying to create a sacrifice zone.

[bvar22]

9. "Clean Coal" and "Sustainable Shale Gas".....

"Hope & Change"

[cali]

10. hey, according to DU's Pro, I'm all wrong here.

[kristopher]

12. You are completely wrong.

How do we shut down coal plants?

No diversions- just answer that specific question.

[ProSense]

14. You're wrong about the "subsidies" despite the lame red herring.

Seriously, you're wrong.

[clandestiny]

21. Thank you! I couldn't have said it better.

[wocaonimabi]

11. Gee will the Wingers get their nickers in a wad again now that the Pres is using Executive action to

drill, drill, drill or is he just being lawless.

I miss the days when Democrats were Democrats and not something else.

[Boom Sound 416]

22. Fracking wells