Home | About | Donate

Press Worries About a Fracking Ban’s 'Risk' to Democrats—Not Fracking's Threat to Planet

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/21/press-worries-about-fracking-bans-risk-democrats-not-frackings-threat-planet

1 Like

In my travels last summer I drove by many a well field in the fracked formation of the Bakken Formation in North Dakota. These installations were spaced like Miami condos–close as close could be. That means the formation is exceptionally tight from an oil-man’s perspective–desperate, if you will. This is the last gasp of the terrestrial play in the US, except for tar sands which are even more hideous. To get the stuff out requires a rape of the land that would boggle your mind. Now I was born in a refinery town on the Texas coast and have come to know of few things about the oil industry in my life. These effers won’t stop if their bottom line is in the black. They must be regulated into the red! Must! Must! Must! No other way!

3 Likes

Good story - just a nitpick or two:

One can —only wonder whether Biden or Harris truly “believe” in science when they pretend a fracking ban and a host of other strong climate measures are not urgent necessities required immediately.

Many of us don’t wonder about that. We are perfectly aware that most of our politicians don’t have a clue about scientific matters - whether they oppose any movement on averting climate disaster or support some movement but have no idea how to prioritize things correctly (hint: we need a hefty carbon tax way more than we need a fracking ban, but I’d prefer both). If our culture valued true scientific understanding over celebrity or public speaking (conning) skills, we would not have very many of the politicians we have including these two.

A January poll of Pennsylvania voters, from Franklin and Marshall University, found that more voters (49%) believe that the environmental risks of fracking outweigh the economic benefits than the reverse (38%), and that more registered voters support a fracking ban (48%) than oppose it (39%).

As much as I don’t respect Biden and Harris, Sirota is wrong when he assumes just because a poll shows a plurality of people in PA oppose fracking, that the position of an opportunistic politician will be to always go along with the plurality. First of all, the obvious, politicians care about the donors not just public opinion and will back what they need to do to keep the money flowing even if it means losing, but also even if they are trying to win, it depends on how these opinions are attached to voters. It could easily be that most voters who support a fracking ban will be annoyed, but will vote Biden anyway, but voters who don’t support a ban and are on the fence but leaning Biden would bail on him if he did come out for a fracking ban. So it isn’t obvious that Biden/Harris aren’t making the correct decision (for them) to win PA.

I of course would prefer we were running Sanders/Lee with a fracking ban and think we would have won PA and the final EC tally for other reasons.

On the conclusion that the mainstream press basically shills for corporate democrats as opposed to giving us a good spectrum of information - I agree 100% and this is why I never hear what they say outside of articles like these - there is plenty of better alternative media and I look forward to the death of fossil fuel industry and the mainstream press.

3 Likes

Let’s stop fracking our next generation’s future, the way we’re doing with our planet.

Is that anything like a “hookah?”

FAIR is consistently excellent with its reporting and analysis. Too bad corporate media keeps such factual reporting and analysis away from the eyes and ears of most media consumers, while the dominant social media are designed as extractive corporate tools, not as truly social tools.

Anyway, always good to see Joshua Cho’s byline on an article at Common Dreams.

1 Like

Use a little common sense, folks. A total fracking ban would totally wipe the democrats out of all colder states. Most people in northern regions rely on natural gas or propane, and people remember when a shortage of propane led to quadruple price increases a few years ago. I suspect a total fracking ban would increase the cost something like tenfold. There are areas where fracking should certainly be banned, but a total ban will have to wait. People don’t like to freeze.

The majority of the fracked gas is exported.

1 Like

Is it obtuseness

Or obsequiousness to power?

Empiricism evinces the latter

Well gosh golly, then no need to worry about the collapse in human civilization thanks to not quickly moving to drastically reduce our production of CO2e or our consumption of natural resources. I get that people don’t want to be cold, but is there not an intergenerational issue here? Okay, don’t freeze today, but your grandkids will live in a Mad Max world. Let’s not have discussions about these issues without realizing what we are facing and the costs we are passing on to future generations.

The media in this country and the politicians are stupid. I think in part the ownership structure of the media and who pays ad revenue has something to do with it, but I also think absolute ignorance on the scale of the environmental crisis and the radical changes needed to deal with this are also an issue. You get the feeling from the media that avoiding societal collapse is an ideological issue, or a partisan issue, something “Democrats” care about. If so, we are collectively beyond stupid, immoral and selfish. And maybe that is just the entire story.

If the assumption is that we want to avoid societal collapse, the only logical way to look at these issues is to see what changes need to be done, and to then analyze how far these worthless politicians are from that. “Pragmatism” is a non-issue, unless the idiot media can figure out a way to convince Mother Nature to compromise.

2 Likes

Unfortunately, if people can not afford their heating bills they will vote Republican. It is a most difficult situation. We need huge changes today, but that is impossible.

Seems to be a widespread argument these days: “Favor what you do not want, or you will lose.”

2 Likes

“I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact,” Harris said.

Once again the Dems have a chance to separate themselves from the Repubs, which they did not, once again showing the one-ness of the Dems & Repubs…

Benefits Fracking:

  1. Destroys groundwater supplies, aquifers, which are not replenishable.
  2. Causes Earthquakes.
  3. Releases Methane.
  4. Injects a toxic mix of chemicals and sand into aquifers, causing disease and cancer, …
  5. Financial Disaster…
  6. and so forth
  7. but they say it will MAGA …

This brings to mind a passage from the Revelations of The New Message from God, a Teaching called: “Avoiding Disaster”…" The disaster has to do with the Great Waves of change that are coming to the world—great environmental change, changing climate, violent weather, the loss of fundamental resources, the impact upon people and your ability to grow food, scarcity of water, growing economic hardship and instability, and the risk of nations going to war over who will have access to the remaining resources of the world."
Time is running out to prepare for the converging disasters…Governments are out of resources. It is up to you to prepare.

They can if you and others refuse to give them a logical argument about what is coming for them, their kids and grandkids if radical changes are not put in place. You don’t have to think with any complexity if you don’t want to, but don’t assume others can’t. They just aren’t given an accurate picture of this situation by the media or the two rotten, worthless, corrupt parties. And I don’t accept anyway that trying to avoid ecological collapse requires people to freeze. What a silly argument.

1 Like

We are not staying under 2°C. It’s physically impossible now, and just to avoid going 3 or 4° over preindustrial temperature, and prevent the complete collapse of civilization, we have to take immediate, radical measures economically, politically, and every other way. The corporate duopoly will never catch up; they’ll always be proposing (or worse, fighting while fake proposing) “solutions” that might have worked if diligently applied 30 or 50 years ago. They’ll have to be ignored, removed from power or power removed from them.

Even though the article acknowledges that the situation is worse than the IPCC and others have recognized, it still doesn’t come close to telling the whole truth. The Australian Breakthrough people have been doing that for a decade.
Through studies and explanations like the new Climate Reality Check 2020
~https://online.flippingbook.com/view/239318/48/
and
What Lies Beneath: The understatement of existential climate risk
~https://52a87f3e-7945-4bb1-abbf-9aa66cd4e93e.filesusr.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf

they keep trying to warn of the direness, though even they don’t fully detail the problem.

Tentative confirmation of a long-feared climate feedback in Arctic clathrates has also been made.
~https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/27/sleeping-giant-arctic-methane-deposits-starting-to-release-scientists-find

1 Like

Use a little common sense yourself. Drastically increasing the rate at which we build replacements for fossil fuels, including efficiency, wiser lives, and clean safe renewable energy, is obviously necessary and will have to be coordinated with the ban on fracking (a pyramid scam that’s been losing money since it started) and nationalizing the fossil fuel industry to shut it down in an orderly way, rather than the chaotic, economically and ecologically destructive way it’s going now. Many studies have shown that doing this will reduce the cost of energy.

1 Like

Also emphasize, the need to shift agriculture swiftly and comprehensively away from colonizing corporate industrial commodity GMO fossil-fueled and biodiversity-destroying chemical agriculture, to a more labor-intensive agroecology based in using nature’s natural systems to process waste, generate healthy soil, increase biodiversity, and sequester carbon in soil and biomass.

1 Like

Absolutely. Small-scale low-meat organic permaculture, reforesting the world, transforming industry to benign, biomimicing, closed-cycle forms. Passing laws in every country requiring better than current environmental impact statement for every project contemplated, the precautionary principle applied to the financial world. I think of all the problems we face as part of this crisis, the hardest one to solve will be deforestation, because it will absolutely require the rich to change everything about their lives.

Plus we need Manhattan-like projects for all the difficult emissions areas–flying, shipping, concrete, steel, plastics… increasing the depth of water in which floating wind turbines can be placed, pursuing all the current leads in improving solar PV, CSP, geothermal and 3 ocean energy sources (tidal, wave, OTEC)… We already have solutions for almost all those; they’re just not considered acceptable by those who rule because they funnel money from the private to the public sphere and reduce profits for the rich.

1 Like