Fracking fight looms for Democrats

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

Fracking and the environment are set to be one of the most contentious battlegrounds for allies of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as they seek to craft the Democratic Party’s platform for 2016.

Members of the platform committee will meet on Friday in Phoenix to hear testimony from several environmental organizations and activists.

Clinton and Sanders clashed bitterly over hydraulic fracturing and fossil fuel production during the campaign, and both have appointed officials to the platform committee who share their views. With Clinton now the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president, the Sanders camp is determined to win as many concessions in the platform is possible.
…
Anthony Rogers-Wright, a policy and organizing director at Environmental Action, noted that Democrats need the support of Sanders voters in the general election, as well as minority voters who view climate change as a major issue.

“Sen. Sanders was very deliberate in picking very strong voices and personalities to be on that committee, to make sure that not only it is influenced but also that it is pushed to get a progressive agenda,” said Rogers-Wright, who is testifying before the committee on Friday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283826-fracking-fight-looms-for-democrats

[leeroysphitz]

1. Democrats have lots of fights ahead since our "nominee" is a republican (light). n/t

[randome]

2. When did they clash on fracking? I honestly can't recall.

There is an argument to be made that fracking is less harmful to the environment, if well-regulated. However, I do think it should be stopped entirely and that we need to move more quickly to end fossil fuel dependency.

I'm betting there isn't as much disagreement between Sanders and Clinton as the article implies. (Without offering any examples, btw.)

[HumanityExperiment]

5. I recall, as do most others paying attention...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-sanders-fracking-rift-221959

HRC surrogate...

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/ed_rendells_fracking_ties_deeper_than_originally_thought_partner/

[randome]

6. Good. Maybe she'll realize it's important to take a stand against it, not just regulate it to death.

She's already said she wants to put coal operators out of business and that's a step in the right direction, too. This is how consensus is achieved.

[HumanityExperiment]

8. not good...

"Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, joins Democrats across the county such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, and California Gov. Jerry Brown, and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (just to name a few), who have all touted strong regulations by the states and supported fracking for its environmental and economic benefits," Brown said."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/

[Jim Lane]

14. Your statement about Clinton and coal is incomplete.

You're taking heart from her "out of business" statement, when she said that "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?"

What you're overlooking is that, after she made that statement, the campaign calendar took her to West Virginia. Coal is very popular in West Virginia. Clinton wanted to win West Virginia. She evolved. She described her earlier comment as a "misstatement" that had been "taken out of context". See "Hillary Clinton apologizes for coal comments in West Virginia" for more detail.

[randome]

15. And a $30 billion investment in retraining.

Yeah, it wasn't a smart thing to say but I don't think she wants to 'shoot the environment' or anything, she recognizes we have to tackle the problems.

[Jim Lane]

16. I agree we have to tackle the problems, but to do so requires more political will.

You comment that "it wasn't a smart thing to say" but I'm not clear on what the "it" is. Are you referring to her initial "out of business" comment or to her subsequent comment walking it back?

Really tackling these problems requires saying something like, "Even though I'm Secretary of State and I'm generally amenable to using my office to promote U.S. business interests abroad, there are competing considerations, such as saving the planet, so I'm going to tick off some big corporations by refusing to help them promote fracking."

It also requires telling some voters, "Not only is the coal industry on the wane, but I support policies that will further that process."

Yes, she did voice support for spending $30 billion to train workers in renewable energy. That seems to depend on Donald Trump to come to our rescue by losing in such a landslide that Democrats retake the Senate and the House -- not impossible but odds-against. Otherwise, I don't see how Congress will approve such a plan.

[randome]

17. The "out of business" comment was the one I thought was poorly worded.

Neither one of us knows how this election will play out but Trump's numbers are, for now, in free fall, and his own party is turning against him.

The odds are getting better for Clinton every day.

I wish she was a better off-the-cuff speaker but I think she'll do fine as President. If we want faster action on the environment, we need to lean on her to do that.

It would be easier if we could elect a die-hard environmentalist as President but since that's not likely to happen, we have to make do with the material at hand.

[Jim Lane]

25. Her "out of business" comment should have been even STRONGER.

In the face of the climate crisis, we need a President who's willing to take significant action. If Clinton is President, nothing significant will happen. If Trump is President, he'll take significant action, but in the wrong direction.

I agree with you about leaning on her but I'm pessimistic about how much good it will do.

[randome]

28. When we reach a crisis point, something will HAVE to be done.

Having a Democrat in the Executive Office at least means we're better prepared to do what needs to be done.

I'm sure you and I agree that something drastic needs to have been done years, if not decades, before now. Unfortunately, the human species being what it is, until we actually see what's happening to the planet, we will continue to wait for the worst while hoping for the best.

[JRLeft]

29. We're well past the crisis point. In a lot of cases we are too late.

Read this article. http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atlantic-conveyor-belt-and-climate-10-years-of-the-rapid-project


Another one. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2016/06/15/first-mammal-extinct-climate-change/85931592/

[randome]

30. I know how dire things are. I still think we'll come through this. We don't have a choice.

Maybe we'll even learn a lesson as a species from this: not to take our planet so cavalierly.

[JRLeft]

32. Incrementalism is not good enough at this point in time.

There will be a lot more extinction.

[PufPuf23]

20. Colombia Free Trade is putting domestic union coal miners out of business.

However, the plentiful and cheap Colombian coal is extending the operating life of coal-fired power plants in the southeast and northeast USA.

Fracking is a highly damaging, short term technology that should be banned.

[randome]

22. I'd have no problem with that.

Part of the problem is always going to be how to get the GOP to cough up money for this, or to at least not default on the national debt or whatever in order to stop our 'moral' right to use coal.

And that process starts by making this year a wave election. I would think our efforts should be focused more on the GOP than on Democrats. They're the ones we need to 'shame' into doing the right thing, which is never easy to do, though.

[TheBlackAdder]

3. HRC promotes fracking, silent on her investments with KXL, Podesta family BP/Koch/Fracking.

[Autumn]

4. We people already lost the Fracking fight.

[djean111]

7. Really, a President Hillary would just ignore the platform anyway.

That poor platform gets dragged out every so often and waved around like it means something to the DNC. It does not.

[MineralMan]

9. Fracking is not a priority issue for most US voters.

It just isn't.

[cali]

10. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern.

Lots of things aren't a priority issue for voters. That in itself doesn't speak to the importance of any given issue.

[MineralMan]

12. I didn't say it shouldn't be a concern at all.

I said it was not a priority concern for voters.

Elections are about what voters care about. Those issues are the ones that determine the outcome. Secondary issues, while important in reality, become unimportant to the election if voters don't based their decisions on them.

This thread was started to put fracking on a list of concerns for the election. My reply was that it's not an issue that will be important in this election, as important as it may be in other ways. My reply is analysis, not a statement of how I feel about fracking.

[cali]

13. Elections are about much more than what issues voters care about

And highlighting issues can change how voters see those issues.

Your analysis is flawed from the get go. Nor does it actually qualify as analysis. It's far too reductive to qualify.

[PufPuf23]

21. That does not mean that fracking should not be a priority issue for voters.

Leadership should take the lead and inform the voters rather than favor those profiting from fracking.

[cali]

11. I see fracking as a critical issue. I hope that HRC

her choices on the Platform Committee listen to Bill McKibben.

[Overseas]

19. I do too. I hope she pushes for a ban on fracking.

As Rogers-Wright pointed out, there are poisonous fracking wells all over the country, which could bring in lots of voters.

The wells are toxic and our water resources will become even more important in an ever-warming climate.

[Overseas]

18. K&R. His testimony at the platform committee was great.

Here's the CSpan video of the environmental needs that includes Anthony Rogers-Wright's testimony:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?411154-1/democratic-platform-drafting-committee-holds-platform-hearing-phoenix&start=2111


Another memorable quote was Josh Fox calling for a fracking ban: "Fracking is not a Bridge. It is a gangplank to environmental catastrophe."

[Adrahil]

23. What is the short-term alternative to fracking?

Mountain-top coal mining. Nothng but bad choices in the short term. Fracking contributes to Climate Change less. IMO, Climate Change is our biggest problem.

[w4rma]

24. Renewables are now efficient enough to be both short- and long-term choices.

We don't need to permanently contaminate aquifers and cause earthquakes, anymore.

[Adrahil]

26. Not quite there with renewables.

We don't have the grid for it, not mention just the generation infrastructure is 20 years away. Like it or not, ending fossil fuel production right now is not an option.
I am an advocate for massive investment in renewables. If I were king, we'd invest trillions in it tomorrow. But even if we did, it would take a decade+ to realize.

[w4rma]

31. No, we're there. The grid can be updated right along with adding new power to the grid. (nt)

[Fumesucker]

27. It doesn't matter, Hillary will do what Hillary wants to do

All the fighting just distracts from watching the wheels go round as they grind our grandchildren's future into bitter toxic dust.

I really love to watch them go.