NY Daily News Reporter on Clinton's fractured Environmental record.

[pantsonfire]

The trouble is, her evolution has been slow, halting and grudging (even after making that “done deal” commitment on fossil fuel extraction, for instance, she’s tried to walk it back). And now, with the New York primary looming, she’s in an uncomfortable spot, because New York has been ground zero in the war on fracking. Activists pulled off an almost impossible feat, using inspired and dogged organizing to force Gov. Cuomo to ban fracking in the Empire State.

At least on climate change, slow and evolutionary change is another way of giving up. Because the world is changing so damned fast. The same week that Hillary was laughing at young folks, scientists told us that this winter had broken every temperature record, that new Antarctic data showed the sea level was likely to rise much faster than anticipated, and that record-hot oceans had put a third of the world’s coral reefs on “death watch” this year alone. In energy terms, we need a revolution; slow and steady loses this race.

But mostly it’s because there’s never been any need for his positions on these issues to evolve. Keystone? “No” in September 2011, not in September 2015. He co-sponsored the bill to stop fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Fracking? Nothing complicated, just a simple, “No.”

His history, in other words, is an asset. Which is odd, because he’s the older candidate — were he elected, he’d be our oldest President. But if you’ve said the same things for decades, when those things were popular and when they weren’t, it’s much easier to get the future right. Young people have done enough research to figure that out.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/bill-mckibben-bernie-sanders-climate-consistency-article-1.2598313

[Buzz Clik]

1. Fracking in NY is not a issue. It is state-by-state decision.

Moot point.

[pantsonfire]

2. Can you reiterate your point? I missed it.

What primary is next? NY?

[Buzz Clik]

3. No problem. You clearly do not understand

Q: Secretary Clinton, where do you stand on fracking?

A: I fully support the decision in NY to not allow fracking. It is the state's decision. Likewise, I support the right of every other state to make their own decision on this issue.


End of story.

[pantsonfire]

4. So, since she agrees with NY's decision, state-by-state, that's fine...

....but you have to admit her environmental record is not very good. Simply rhetorically agreeing with NY's decision to ban fracking, while ostensibly having nothing to do with it, is hollow. I don't trust her with the protection of the environment, based on her record...politicians get away with saying one thing and doing another behind closed doors (btw I know Sanders isn't a saint, he utilizes the same strategy at times, but it's David and Goliath in comparison).

[Buzz Clik]

5. I happen to strongly disagree with some aspects of Sanders's environmental policies.

For example, he "no fracking anywhere" concept is ridiculous. Natural gas should be central in our energy strategy as we segue to renewables.

The opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline was symbolic and empty. During the entirety of the debate, the crude from Canadian tar sands was flowing through a complex array of pipelines in the US, and it still is. Supporting the opposition was a meaningless gesture.

[pantsonfire]

6. Why is Hillary Clinton in opposition of the pipeline?

Fracking often poisons water wells deep underground that containment drinking water. It seems to be a very risky practice. I doubt he'd stop it immediately, but would push to get it stopped ASAP.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Clinton was triangulating endlessly about the pipeline, much like Obama.

Fracking companies need to be hammered with tight environmental regulations. The practice is fine; the enforcement of existing regulations is awful.

[pantsonfire]

8. The practice is fine? Says who? Exxon Mobil? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

9. Look up the EPA reports. Fracking very seldom results in groundwater pollution.

[pantsonfire]

10. There's one report....

The study was the first time that a drilling company allowed federal researchers to inject tracers into the fracking fluid to see if it spreads. Drilling advocates are likely to hail the study as proof of the procedure’s safety, but it contradicts numerous other studies that have demonstrated the opposite.

Rob Jackson, a scientist at Duke University, warned that a single study should not serve as evidence that fracking is safe, especially since the geology and fracking practices vary across the US. He told the AP that the drilling company might have been unusually meticulous at their research site, knowing that the procedure was being closely monitored.

https://www.rt.com/usa/study-claims-fracking-safe-324/

[Buzz Clik]

11. I know the research ... and the lack of it. This is why the companies need to be reeled in.

I support fracking, but not to the point of no monitoring, no accountability, no access for research.

[pantsonfire]

12. Regardless of the largely unnatural chemical additives injected into the ground..

...it appears that sites with higher drilling zones (1000ft vs 8000ft) have a exponentially larger chance of doing damage.

[kristopher]

13. "Natural gas should be central in our energy strategy as we segue to renewables."

Why? Because Dick Cheney said so?

We do not need to spend another cent to develop a fossil fuel resource.

Not one cent.

It is a flat fact that we can do everything we need to do with renewable energy. They only drawback would be the adverse consequences to corporate and political cash flow.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Cheney is a sack of steaming shit. If he agrees with me, it's an unfortunate coincidence.

It is a flat fact that we can do everything we need to do with renewable energy.

Some day, but not right at the moment. Thus, the word "segue".

[kristopher]

15. He doesn't "agree with" you, he PLANNED IT

What we have and the "bridge" you point to are creations of Dick Cheney in his 2005 Energy Bill.

We do not need to spend one cent developing any fossil fuel or nuclear resource. Everything we need to do can be accomplished with renewable resources and energy efficiency.

Your claim is simply false. But I will give you that it is commonly accepted as a truism. However, in the popular consciousness this belief is actually rooted in a desire by those with strong messaging power to avoid corporate losses; not in any type of physical demand related to power generation and usage.

[Buzz Clik]

16. So, I can be condensed to a political stereotype and some anti-corporate rhetoric....

...simply because I don't buy into Sanders's "no fracking anywhere" bullshit?

We will disagree forever. Have the last word.

[kristopher]

17. Sure, the last word.

Researching the public face of the transition away from carbon is what I've been dedicated to since 2003. I'm certain of the state we are at regarding the science, economics, engineering, and policy related to the transition away from carbon.

Everything starts with the vast assets represented by the present physical system and the economic interests of the owners of those assets. We have more than enough existing capacity to "segue" to renewables, we just need more renewables and energy efficiency so we can segue away from something to something.

[xynthee]

18. This is good!! Thanks for sharing!

NO ONE should support fracking anywhere ever! Hillary's just wrong on everything. Oh, how I hope the people realize it before it's too late!!

[DebDoo]

19. Kick

[Impedimentus]

20. Fractured but still fracking

FEEL TTHE BERN - 2106