Home | About | Donate

Fight Over Fracking Heats Up at the Democratic Convention


#1

Fight Over Fracking Heats Up at the Democratic Convention

Ruth Conniff

On Wednesday, POLITICO hosted a panel on energy at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association of the oil and gas industry. The group, whose members include EXXONMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell, lobbies against federal regulation of greenhouse gases and has tried to cast doubt on climate science.

American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard, who welcomed everyone to the panel.


#2

The phrase "ye shall have dominion over the earth" really sucks. I wonder if in dinosaur heaven they chuckle over how much we value their farts.


#4

The GOP and Dimcritter Parties are domestic anachronisms ignoring the global environment as they view the rest of the world as profit centers.

Unlike those red and blue anachronisms, the Green Party is a global party with global concerns beyond profit.


#5

Thanks Brad Johnson, Bernie delegates and all the others who did their best to speak truth to power inside and outside the DNC convention. You are the ones we have been waiting for! You are the ones creating hope to believe in! Go forth and build it; the people will come.


#7

Second that.


#8

Thank you for covering this Ruth Conniff.

A point I'd like to make when you say (and my added bold):

"Environmentalists worry that fracking, a process for extracting natural gas using drilling, high pressure water, and chemicals, can poison groundwater and cause tremors in the Earth. Hickenlooper explained why he opposed a law that would have kept fracking away from people’s homes."

It is MUCH more than just a "worry"! As an "environmentalist" I am beyond worried. I am outraged that HRC and Obama have promoted fracking around the world and have not called for a total ban on this horrific procedure. There are facts re HRC's record on fracking that need to be highlighted in every article about climate change and fracking. It is a fact (not just a "worry") that fracking poisons groundwater:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-science-shows-fracking-contaminates-groundwater-yet-epa-still-muzzled-industry-pressure/

From article:

“But didn’t we already know that fracking can contaminate groundwater supplies?”

“Yes we did. The New York Times found that the EPA knew about groundwater contamination from fracking as far back as 1987. In fact, links between shale drilling, fracking, and groundwater contamination has been well documented.
But that has not stopped an industry-funded campaign of denial on the issue. The fracking industry has spent big to keep people in the dark on the real impacts from fracking, funding front groups like Energy In Depth to obscure the science on fracking and drilling.”

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-04-15/fracking-contaminates-groundwater-stanford-study


#9

I second that!

All of us deserve a hand for our contributions to this revolutionary movement. Now its time to get to work again to change our blatantly corrupt political system.

It occurs to me that we are being told it will take years and years to bring about this change. I think it will come much sooner - remember the Berlin Wall?


#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#14

Let's be honest. The enemy of all democrats only posts horrible photos of her. Even though I hate her policies history and her votes to go to war, based upon lies, I try not to actually hate the person inside that head. There is or was a soul in there at some point. Somehow, we have got to appeal to that soul, if we want her to help us do some good out here. That is the only hope we have now. I hope we won't waste our time on calling her fat or ugly. That won't help anyone.


#15

Mr. Obama called in all of the governors recently to try to get them all on board to push through his TPP Deal with their people in their states. WE HAVE GOT to DEMAND from our Governors, a NO to TPP, and we have to do it without stop until we win this battle. The 1% has got Obama in their pockets, lining his own with big promises and likely a great financial future. We have our battles cut out for us, and we must unite together to fight them now. VOICES must ring out and without ceasing. Standing firmly together is the best hope we have now.


#16

The truth is, the NY Times has done little to help us in the fight against poisoning our groundwater. We need to have a much greater powerful input upon Mass Main Stream Media. And we need it now. The way to get that? Have truly progressive people OWN Mass Media, instead of what is going on now - the reverse.


#17

I agree with you Renew Hope! And more------
The truth is the NY Times has done much to poison the groundwater given they pushed fracking (which, imo, should be a crime against humanity and the biosphere).

I should have prefaced my post with how much I despise the NY Times and pointed out their duplicity:

SundayReview | EDITORIAL
Sending Natural Gas Abroad
DEC. 15, 2012

A new and long-awaited report from the Department of Energy has concluded that the government should quickly begin easing restrictions on the export of natural gas to take advantage of the vast new discoveries of a fuel that only a decade ago was in relatively short supply in this country.

Exporting natural gas is a controversial issue, with powerful forces on both sides. But we are persuaded by the report’s core finding that the benefits of selling gas to other countries would more than offset the modestly negative impact of higher prices for domestic users of the fuel.

The United States has traditionally maintained tight control over the export of natural gas, a fuel that it once imported, allowing it to be sold only in cases deemed to be in the “public interest.” But those restrictions have become anachronistic.

Production from shale gas fields has swelled American reserves and driven down prices by two-thirds since 2008. American natural gas is now among the cheapest fuels anywhere in the world and costs as little as one-fourth of what the fuel sells for in Europe and Asia.

There will be trade-offs to lifting the export restrictions. On the plus side, the report says that exports of gas in liquefied form could provide a $47 billion boost to the economy by 2020, including the construction of gas terminals. While the report dwells largely on economic issues, exports would also help to lower emissions linked to global climate change by giving countries like India, China, Japan and Germany access to a cleaner energy source than coal.

Greater gas exports could also factor into American foreign policy. By offering countries like India and China access to cheap American gas, Washington could make it more palatable for them to join in supporting sanctions against Iran, for instance. And it could give the United States new leverage in trade negotiations.

The main opposition comes from chemical and fertilizer companies that are big users of natural gas, and from consumers who fear higher prices. With more gas headed to foreign shores, domestic supplies of the fuel are expected to fall, driving up its price. But prices would still be well below their 2008 levels, and they would rise only gradually, over the course of several years.
A second objection comes mainly from some environmental groups that regard fracturing, the technique used to extract gas from deep shale formations, as environmentally dangerous. These concerns are best addressed by much tighter regulation of gas production, not by restricting exports.

There is no certainty that the Obama administration will approve more than a few new liquefied natural gas terminals, which take several years to build. But 15 new terminals have been proposed by the industry. Of these, four are scheduled to receive regulatory decisions in 2013. At the very least the administration should give the green light to the four that are pending and accelerate the review process for the rest


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#21

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#22

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#23

aligatorhardt, your hatred is spilling over. Here's something to possibly consider. Whatever "mood" we are in when we read posts and emails, is going to impact the way we interpret them. I hope this concept is taken seriously and considered. I do not deserve the kind of hatred you posted here, aimed right at me. Reading posts without coming to the articles, having a calm and reflective attitude may not be such a good idea. I hope your words will be more well considered, going forward. If not, then I will simply delete them. Have a good day.


#24

It's been many years since I was a regular reader of "The Progressive", but, correct me if I'm wrong--don't they always endorse the Dem nominee? That would explain her reluctance to encourage voting Green. I think it's more of that "work within the Dem Party" crap.