'There is no way that Hillary Clinton is not a strong supporter of TPP and Fast Track'

[marmar]

By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, Americablog, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. This piece first appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.


I’ll put the bottom line first. There is no way that Hillary Clinton is not a strong supporter of TPP and Fast Track. Read on for why.

There has been a lot written lately, including here, about the Democratic Party split between progressives and “progressives” — the former of whom have most of the people on their side, and the latter of whom have most of the money. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson and others are firmly in the progressive camp, what’s being called the “Warren wing” of the party.

Most Democratic Party officials and electeds, however, are in the latter camp, which many call the “Wall Street wing,” though huge swaths of American (and foreign) moneyed interests, not just those on Wall Street, are supporters and controllers of that wing. To take just one moneyed interest — Big Oil — consider that:

* Exxon is one of the largest owners of unmonetized methane (yet-to-be-fracked natural gas) in the country.

* “Left-wing” support groups and think tanks like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) and NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) strongly support (pdf) the “temporary” transition to natural gas as a bridge fuel.

* By many reports both EDF and NRDC receive money in various ways, as well as advice, from the oil and gas industry and their advocates.

* NRDC in particular is said to have had a hand in Obama’s new climate plan.

* And … President Obama’s big climate plan — his “Clean Power Plan” (a very methane industry–like phrase) — happens to preference methane over everything else in our arsenal, including just quitting carbon in a World War II–style conversion and being done with it.

The “Wall Street wing” of the Democratic Party is really the Money wing and represents Money wherever it is found. Though some dispute the claim, it seems to me the split between the Warren wing and the Money wing is huge, a chasm, and shows little sign of healing at the moment. It may heal later, artificially and for a time, around a Clinton candidacy, but that time isn’t now.

Hillary Clinton and the Money Wing

I think it’s fair to say, regardless of how you view Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, that her biggest hurdle on the Democratic side is her perceived connection to Big Money, and lots of it. Her family grew rich by cultivating people with money; her foundation grew fat by cultivating people (and nations) with money; and her donor list has historically included holders of big money, especially Wall Street holders (though Obama seems to have out-raised her on Wall Street in 2008). ..............(more)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/gaius-publius-hillary-tpp-and-the-center-for-american-progress.html

[samsingh]

1. i don't understand tpp

[NYC_SKP]

2. "Clean Energy" and "Hydrogen Economy" usually mean "Natural Gas" (methane).

The gas industry has shamelessly co-opted "clean energy" with little resistance.

And, the "hydrogen economy" idea brought to us by Bush, LOL.

95% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas.

And, yes, Hillary Clinton is one of them, she worked on Chevron's behalf while SOS.



http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Hillary Clinton Chevron

.

.

.

[marmar]

3. Good article.

[jeff47]

4. In their (slight) defense

it is clean...er. You get more usable energy per ton of CO2 released from natural gas than from other carbon fuels.

Though we still need to move to non-CO2-producing energy sources.

I'm still surprised that the morons running the oil companies aren't dumping R&D money into synthetic fuels. Right now, they take large quantities of carbon-based fuels and pump them all over the country to conveniently-located distribution centers (aka gas stations) and homes.

If we developed ways to efficiently-enough make carbon-based fuels from atmospheric CO2, we still need to pump them all over the country to conveniently-located distribution centers and homes.

Instead, the lack of R&D money means we're moving to electricity and battery-based power systems instead of synthetic fuels. Exxon and company have worked their assess off to make themselves obsolete instead of dominating the post-fossil-fuel world.