How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World

[FreakinDJ]

How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World



One icy morning in February 2012, Hillary Clinton’s plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria’s bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read “Stop fracking with our water” and “Chevron go home.” Bulgaria’s parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the “best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people.” But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania’s parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment’s lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania’s parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria’s eased its moratorium.


The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton’s diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe — part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials — some with deep ties to industry — also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.



https://medium.com/climate-desk/how-hillary-clinton-s-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world-5a291d7797f5

[Doctor_J]

1. But she was just following Obama's orders!

Nothing she did as SoS was really her!

raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.

Same 1% that are served by most of her programs.

[msongs]

3. so if bernies's SOS fails to follow orders what do you suppose will happen to him/her? nt

[Doctor_J]

4. But I read recently on DU that she was the most productive and successful SoS in history

and that that was all her doing. So confusing. Like when she was co-president in 1993-2000, except for NAFTA and the welfare deform and Glass-Steagall

[Fumesucker]

15. You forgot DOMA

[Admiral Loinpresser]

21. Your attempt at mitigation is so Nuremberg.

She should have resigned of course, if she was ordered to do that.

Anybody with half a conscience would have. She was only interested in padding her resume for another pass at the Brass Ring.

[kenfrequed]

27. Careful

I agree with you, but stay away from Godwin's rule.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. LOL, touche.

My only defense is that I really wasn't making an over the top reference to ideological affiliation. Subjectively, it was an innocent reference to the iconic example of people blaming their ethics on their bosses. But Godwin's rule is a strident rhetorical executioner.

[rhett o rick]

31. "Hey look, Sanders' hair is messed up." Poor attempt to distract.

HRC and Chevron were lobbying governments to frack in spite of the People's protesting in the cold streets. She was Obama's SoS because they agreed on issues like this.

The basic problem is that she sees fracking for oil profits as more important than People's drinking water.

I am sure you know this but are willing to overlook it because .................. I can't really guess. Maybe you put your trust in the 1% because you believe that the wealthy should rule us as they see fit.

[cui bono]

37. If she disagreed with the policy she should have resigned.

Same thing with the TPP and anything else she was "forced" to do while SOS.

She and Obama are corporatist Dems who represent big business first, the people second. They throw the people a few social justice bones to make them think they're on their side and then they turn around and give big business whatever they need to take over the world. And no, that's not hyperbole. Just read about the TPP.

[floriduck]

5. And no one sees a trend in her decision making?

She was quite consistent in her previous positions.

[villager]

11. And Obama had no choice whatsoever because... Republicans!

[KoKo]

19. Some Snips from the Article:

“They’re desperate,” says Antoine Simon of Friends of the Earth Europe. “It’s the last push to continue their fossil fuel development.”
-------------

The politics of fracking overseas were also fraught. According to Susan Sakmar, a visiting law professor at the University of Houston who has studied fracking regulation, the United States is one of the only nations where individual landowners own the mineral rights. “In most, perhaps all, other countries of the world, the underground resources belong to the crown or the government,” she explains. The fact that property owners didn’t stand to profit from drilling on their land ignited public outrage in some parts of the world, especially Eastern Europe. US officials speculate that Russia also had a hand in fomenting protests there. “The perception among diplomats in the region was that Russia was protecting its interests,” says Mark Gitenstein, the former US ambassador to Romania. “It didn’t want shale gas for obvious reasons.”

Faced with these obstacles, US and European energy companies launched a lobbying blitz targeting the European Union. They formed faux grassroots organizations, plied lawmakers with industry-funded studies, and hosted lavish dinners and conferences for regulators. The website for one industry confab — which, according to Friends of the Earth Europe, featured presentations from Exxon Mobil, Total, and Halliburton — warned that failure to develop shale gas “will have damaging consequences on European energy security and prosperity” and urged European governments to “allow shale gas exploration to advance” so they could “fully understand the scale of the opportunity.”

US lobbying shops also jumped into the fray. Covington & Burling, a major Washington firm, hired several former senior EU policymakers — including a top energy official who, according to the New York Times, arrived with a not-yet-public draft of the European Commission’s fracking regulations.
------------------------------

“The Romanians were just sitting on the leases, and Chevron was upset,” says former US ambassador to Romania Mark Gitenstein. “So I intervened.”

The strategy did little to soothe the public’s ire.

When Chevron finally did attempt to install the rig in late 2013, residents — including elderly villagers who arrived in horse-drawn carts — blockaded the planned drilling sites. The Romanian Orthodox Church rallied behind them, with one local priest likening Chevron to enemy “invaders.” Soon, anti-fracking protests were cropping up from Poland to the United Kingdom. But Chevron didn’t back down. Along with other American energy firms, it lobbied to insert language in a proposed US-EU trade agreement allowing US companies to haul European governments before international arbitration panels for any actions threatening their investments. Chevron argued this was necessary to protect shareholders against “arbitrary” and “unfair” treatment by local authorities.

But environmental groups say it would stymie fracking regulation and point to a $250 million lawsuit Delaware-based Lone Pine Resources has filed against the Canadian province of Quebec for temporarily banning fracking near a key source of drinking water. The case hinges on a similar trade provision.

--------------

Despite the public outcry in Europe, the State Department has stayed the course. Clinton’s successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, views natural gas as a key part of his push against climate change. Under Kerry, State has ramped up investment in its shale gas initiative and is planning to expand it to 30 more countries, from Cambodia to Papua New Guinea.

Following the Crimea crisis, the Obama administration has also been pressing Eastern European countries to fast-track their fracking initiatives so as to be less dependent on Russia. During an April visit to Ukraine, which has granted concessions to Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would bring in technical experts to speed up its shale gas development. “We stand ready to assist you,” promised Biden, whose son Hunter has since joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company. “Imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: ‘Keep your gas.’ It would be a very different world.”

[Progressive dog]

28. From Wikipedia

"Bulgaria is believed to have extensive natural gas resources but due to a successful Russian-backed campaign against hydraulic fracturing does not, as of 2014, permit exploration or exploitation of this possibility."

So I guess it is fine for Bulgaria to not produce natural gas and to keep producing and burning lignite coal. That will, at best, keep greenhouse gases steady.
Coal generates more than 1.9X the CO2 that natural gas does for the same energy content.
"Coal is cheap, plentiful and dirty -- as cheap as dirt, as plentiful as dirt, and as dirty as dirt -- since after all, coal is little more than dirt that burns."[link:http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html|

[lewebley3]

22. That is what a Secretary does: We have one President at time: Obama made policy

[rhett o rick]

32. Your implication that she was forced to do it has zero basis. Obama appointed her because they see

eye to eye on these issues. Even today she hasn't refuted her dedication to oil profits.

[lewebley3]

64. Hillary was not forced to do anything: She chose to serve Obama

Again a Secretary of state doesn't make policy, the President
does.

Obama said, when he appointed Hillary it was because as he said she carried
great weight as an American rep: he also said he trusted
Hillary, and that she was competent. Obama never said he
chose Hillary because they saw eye to eye, in fact
he bragged about having a advisory for a Secretary of state.


You are making implications that don't attach to Hillary, you
are just a bitter Sanders supporter.

[rhett o rick]

65. Calling me names is a last resort for people that have nothing to offer.

But actually I am bitter about Democrats that cowardly decided to not only follow Bush and Cheney but actually help them. Now one of them is running for President. She betrayed us and help THE REPUBLICANS.

I seriously wonder about people that can overlook the damage of that decision. Being able to ignore the deaths must be something.

I am a supporter of freedom from the big money oligarchy that runs our government. Obviously others seek the so-called comfort of siding with the big money power.

This is a class war and your idols in the 1% are not on the people's side.

[lewebley3]

67. No a name: its a term

[Doctor_J]

36. Then we should expect no more posts about how her "success" while SoS was a personal triumph

and belongs on her resume.

and seriously, Lew. do you really think she's against the president's policies? Try to keep it real.

[lewebley3]

63. Doctor: You are carping on Hillary success, because Sanders has none!

Sanders has been just a talker, nothing more: Hillary I think is smart
enough to understand who is President.

Yes, I think Hillary could hold different views than President and
carry out his policy. In most cases, people often work for
companies they don't always agreed with completely, over
all Hillary trust's Obama.

[cui bono]

38. She could have resigned and made a statement by doing so.

[lewebley3]

62. No, she shouldn't have resigned: She had a responsibly to Obama and the country

Hillary is not an ideologue on the side lines carping on
her country.
That is a Sanders supporters job, they aren't much help at
all to this country expect for whining.

[cui bono]

69. Anyone with any integrity resigns in protest when they are asked to promote/do something against

their principles. Period.

As to you comparing the influence of a SOS to an average citizen, well that's just silly.

As to your insult of Sanders supporters, it only goes to illustrate what when Hillary supporters claim Sanders supporters are mean that they are completely and totally projecting. You should check out the Clinton Cave, I think you'd fit right in there.

[lewebley3]

70. You are wrong: Serving your counrty when Obama ask:

Is a very important principle! I am not in any cave
I am very proud Dem that supports Hillary for
all right principles.

[DhhD]

47. In the debate, Clinton said that she would, "Deepen Obama's policies".

New Democrates are getting the world ready for New Democrat and Republicans Trade Deals. It was her job to deliver the countries to the PACKs. One PACK is the TPP-Trans-Pacific Pack. She worked to get Mexico TPP ready which is what the Mexican 1% have been trying to do since the 1938 Nationalization of Mexico's Oil Industry-PEMA. I believe that Mexico is a favorite vacation destination for some politicians.

Now Clinton says that she is against TPP. Will she flip back?

[lewebley3]

61. Again you are confusing Obama with Hillary's job: Hillary will Deepen Health Care

No, Hillary has had one position, she is against the TPP, it was
only finished a month ago.

You believe a lot of crazy left wing conspiracies, you are worse
than the Tea party in your own way.

Sorry, we all know Hillary, is for public service, not for private
industry.

[cantbeserious]

2. HRC - Not Satisfied With Earthquakes And Polluted Drinking Water At Home - Felt The Need To Export

eom

[Scuba]

6. Yet some still claim she'll be good for the environment.

[FlatBaroque]

7. Chevron uses the Gold Standard of fracking processes.

[Hydra]

9. Gold standards all around!

Gold for the 1%, standard(non) protection for us!

Everybody wins!

[rhett o rick]

33. Be careful not to get any of that "Gold Standard" on your shoes. nm

[AzDar]

8. She's SO completely compromised and messy. Ugh.

[PatrickforO]

10. Yet another reason not to support Clinton in

the primaries.

Go Bernie! I think Sanders will surprise quite a few people when the votes are counted...

[randys1]

26. I will rec your post because of the way you wrote it...

[Eric J in MN]

12. Worldwide fracking = worldwide poisoned water (NT)

NT

[LeFleur1]

13. WOW! That's Impressive

We'll have to elect her President. Not only could she run this country, she has already become decision maker for so many countries in the world....according to some on this site. Send Hillary and you can bet the reason she went (according to some) will come to be! That should be her campaign slogan.

PUT ME IN THE WHITE HOUSE, I ALREADY RUN THE WORLD.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Hepburn]

24. Ditto. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. Hillary loves fracking

not environmentally friendly

[rhett o rick]

34. It's not personal. Profits come first. nm

[stillwaiting]

17. So. Many. Reasons. Ugh. nt

[Enthusiast]

18. Yooj kick and recommended!

I guess we should invite Hillary supporters to refute these claims if they can.

[INdemo]

41. Hillary Clinton could stand front and center on the next debate

and declare:
DAMN RIGHT I SUPPORT FRACKING WORLDWIDE

and Hillary supporters would still stand in line to_____________


support her

[Admiral Loinpresser]

20. Planetary traitor.

If you are going to vote to hide this, please consider that my rationale for this comment is the substance of the OP. Fracking and all the other ecological crimes against humanity are destroying the planet. If you still don't get it: the human species is going extinct because of the kinds of things reported in the article.

[UglyGreed]

23. K/R

[Cassiopeia]

25. This is what an HRC administration will continue to fight for.

Bernie 2016!

[mhatrw]

29. So fracking evil nt

[rhett o rick]

35. Fracking Evil

[Vattel]

39. But she has since evolved into a beautiful green guaridan of the earth.

[chapdrum]

40. League of Conservation Voters just endorsed HRC

Yet another fraudulent environmental org (ala EDF).

[INdemo]

44. I read this earlier and I thought it read:

League of Conservative Voters ..must have been a misprint

[BeanMusical]

42. Kick and R

[INdemo]

43. I dont understand the Hillary supporters,she could........

Oh well it would just get an "Alert" so never mind

[99th_Monkey]

45. Headline today: " Severe storm warning for 63 million Americans this week"

electing Hillary will simply be asking for "more of the same" imho.

[DhhD]

46. Thanks for this information FreakinDJ.

I came across this story several weeks ago when studying another story on how in 2011-12, Secretary Clinton helped the Mexican 1%, wealthy investors and foreign oil and gas corporations, privatize the Mexican Nationalized Oil Industry, PEMA. I have posted on this several times.

Clinton is a privatizers working for profiteers according to the third way. Her third way team apparently went through a revolving door to work in the privatized businesses.

Anybody that would like to, please feel free to use a search box; see what WikiLeaks has and see what you find.

These privatized businesses are TPP ready. It made Mexico TPP ready even though there are violent protests in Mexico against NAFTA and TPP.

[rhett o rick]

48. There is no truth to the rumor that she confronted the Chevron CEO and said, "stop it". nm

[INdemo]

51. and then she reached out her hand and he gave her

an envelope and she opened it and then said "well just this one time" mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[rhett o rick]

52. I think the accumulation of wealth (power) weighs heavy on her mind. nm

[INdemo]

55. She has been running for president now for more than 20 years

and all the hoop la a year ago was quite a show..Will she run? Hillary to announce soon etc etc.

[rhett o rick]

56. She is in it for the power and her supporters know that and that's why they follow her.

They don't care what her stands are on fracking, so-called free trade agreements, pipelines, Patriot Act, her betrayal with the Iraq War, her stand on torture, drilling in the arctic, student loans, etc. As long as she convinces them that she is a tough authoritarian leader. They say they like her because of her social justice stands, but even with those she is weaker than Sen Sanders.

[INdemo]

57. With all the millions and all the phony

endorsements and the corporate media falling over here as if she was some kind of a goddess,is that something to look back on and say "look what I accomplished" Well she wont accomplish anything because its being bought for her if she wins but I think in the end Bernie Sanders will connect with the voters.
.If this was Elizabeth Warren running and hoping to be the first women President it would be totally different because she like Bernie Sanders would be a "peoples" mainstream candidate that corporations could not buy.

[appalachiablue]

49. K & R. Excellent read.

[Unknown Beatle]

50. Wait a minute.

Somethings wrong. Where are all the Hillary supporters and defenders weighing in on the subject?

[ybbor]

58. That's what I was wondering

Must be working on their design for a new offensive sig line gif.

[Agony]

53. Natural Gas is a bridge to nowhere.

As Howarth writes, if we are to take climate change seriously we should not be investing in a shift from one fossil fuel to another that provides modest (and the jury is still out on that) at best reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The major issue with Nat Gas is with systemic methane leaks not just the CO2 generated by combustion. Methane is a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas over shorter time periods than CO2. The clip below is from a paper of his which is freely available in its entirety at the link.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/full

"Is natural gas a bridge fuel? At best, using natural gas rather than coal to generate electricity might result in a very modest reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions, if those emissions can be kept below a range of 2.4–3.2% (based on [40], adjusted for the latest information on radiative forcing of methane [34]). That is a big “if,” and one that will require unprecedented investment in natural gas infrastructure and regulatory oversight. For any other foreseeable use of natural gas (heating, transportation), the GHG is larger than if society chooses other fossil fuels, even with the most stringent possible control on methane emissions, if we view the consequences through the decadal GWP frame. Given the sensitivity of the global climate system to methane [41, 42], why take any risk with continuing to use natural gas at all? The current role of methane in global warming is large, contributing 1.0 watts m?2 out of the net total 2.29 watts m?2 of radiative forcing [34].

Am I recommending that we continue to use coal and oil, rather than replace these with natural gas? Not at all. Society needs to wean itself from the addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible. But to replace some fossil fuels (coal, oil) with another (natural gas) will not suffice as an approach to take on global warming. Rather, we should embrace the technologies of the 21st Century, and convert our energy systems to ones that rely on wind, solar, and water power [59-61]. In Jacobson et al. [54], we lay out a plan for doing this for the entire state of New York, making the state largely free of fossil fuels by 2030 and completely free by 2050. The plan relies only on technologies that are commercially available at present, and includes modern technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps for domestic water and space heating. We estimated the cost of the plan over the time frame of implementation as less than the present cost to the residents of New York from death and disease from fossil fuel caused air pollution [54]. Only through such technological conversions can society truly address global change. Natural gas is a bridge to nowhere."

[Eric J in MN]

54. K & R (NT)

NT

[thucythucy]

59. Fracking is exactly opposite the direction we should be moving.

ANY investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is worse than money flushed down the toilet--it only deepens the carbon hole we will have to climb out of if the planet is to survive.

Very disappointed to read this.

[riderinthestorm]

60. I'm noting the absence of certain DU HRC supporters on this thread

[Vattel]

66. That is notable.

[Romulox]

68. Clinton supporter support fracking, if she does. It's that simple. nt

[bunnies]

71. Firewater for everyone!

Hurray!