Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Baobab | May 2016 | OP |
phazed0 | May 2016 | #1 | |
SCantiGOP | May 2016 | #4 | |
phazed0 | May 2016 | #5 | |
phazed0 | May 2016 | #6 | |
PatrynXX | May 2016 | #2 | |
yuiyoshida | May 2016 | #3 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2016 | #7 | |
Make7 | May 2016 | #8 |
Response to Baobab (Original post)
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:04 PM
phazed0 (745 posts)
1. K&R Probably because Hillary is all for it, as is Trump. nt
Response to phazed0 (Reply #1)
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:45 PM
SCantiGOP (13,225 posts)
4. What in the hell does that mean?
Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #4)
phazed0 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #4)
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:57 PM
phazed0 (745 posts)
6. You think that Trump or Hillary differ on oil drilling?
Hmm.
http://environmental-action.org/blog/lip-service-clintons-green-plan-bad-news-for-brown-communities/ At a time when scientists are telling us that we must leave 80 percent of fossil fuels in the ground to avert the worst case scenarios of climate catastrophe, Clinton’s platform is the antithesis of the “Leave It In The Ground” Manifesto. Further, it would increase investments in fracked-gas infrastructure instead of a renewable energy revolution. To choose to plow countless dollars and jobs into building a new generation of pipelines and export terminals, when the clean energy economy is already creating more jobs than the fossil fuel industry is ridiculous. Clinton’s plan even considers technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a long-since unproven technology with no future in a global warming action plan. We need to vastly reduce the amount of global warming pollution we produce, not invest in technology that doesn’t work and can only be used by our worst polluters. Further, we all know, based on our country’s legacy of targeting Black and Brown communities for the placement of toxic waste, where CCS facilities would likely be situated — certainly not communities like Chappaqua, NY. Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking. Hillary Clinton ‘Sold Fracking to the World’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-fracking-_b_9156182.html Less than a week before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton attended a gala fundraiser in Philadelphia at the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital Partners, a major investor in the fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking. The controversial fracking industry is particularly powerful in Pennsylvania, which will host the Democratic National Convention this July. Clinton has avoided taking any clear stand on fracking... The pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, run by David Brock, touts Clinton’s aggressive pro-fracking record. Bernie Sanders never accepted money from corporations involved in fracking, and certainly never accepted money from prison lobbyists. His challenger, on the other hand, is linked to oil and gas contributions that span across the globe. According to Reuters, “the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have accepted large donations from major energy companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron.” Clinton’s foundations also accepted money from an office of the Canadian government linked to promoting Keystone XL. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron 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. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682#ixzz49DFGLEWd “Clinton’s climate plan is remarkable for what it doesn’t say, yet,” California-based environmental activist R.L. Miller, who founded the Climate Hawks Vote PAC, said in a statement. Specifically, she added, Clinton offered “no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL, Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking.” |
Response to Baobab (Original post)
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:37 PM
PatrynXX (5,668 posts)
2. Bye Bye
southern economy and who here is for Big oil hmmmm
![]() |
Response to Baobab (Original post)
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:50 PM
yuiyoshida (40,712 posts)
3. I am beginning to hate the Corporate media
What if massive amounts of people showed up at their doors,do you think they would listen then? Maybe people should do what I did..put their TV OUT IN THE GARBAGE CAN.
|
Response to Baobab (Original post)
Fri May 20, 2016, 06:03 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (45,589 posts)
7. Duplicate of pre-existing thread in this forum two posts below on the front page
Response to Baobab (Original post)
Fri May 20, 2016, 07:15 PM
Make7 (8,534 posts)
8. For comparison, Deepwater Horizon spilled about 100,000 gallons of oil per hour...
... for 86 days.
|