Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(646 posts)
Tue May 31, 2016, 06:47 AM May 2016

Major environmental group makes first ever endorsement of Hillary Clinton


By Abby Phillip May 31 at 6:30 AM

A major environmental group, the NRDC Action Fund, will endorse Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in its first-ever political endorsement in a presidential election.

In a statement, the NRDC Action Fund, a political affiliate of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the unprecedented endorsement is reflective of the need for left-leaning groups to unite against Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

“Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President Obama’s environmental legacy,” Rhea Suh, president of the NRDC Action Fund, said in a statement. “More than any other candidate running, Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the possibility and promise our democracy affords us.”...

The endorsement is a blow to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who hopes to upset Clinton next week in the Democratic primary in California, a state where environmental issues loom large.

The NRCD Action Fund's move to endorse Clinton comes at a critical time for her as she seeks to dispatch with Sanders and pivot to a general election fight against Donald Trump. Clinton may also be facing a tougher-than-expected challenge from Sanders in California. Her campaign announced on Monday that she would spend more time than originally planned campaigning in the state this week.

50 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Major environmental group makes first ever endorsement of Hillary Clinton (Original Post) Henhouse May 2016 OP
Wow at least 2 huges ones back to back (UAW was great as well) Amimnoch May 2016 #1
Wow! How they explain her fracking? peace13 May 2016 #2
Guess they haven't heard of this newfangled thing called 'fracking'. cui bono May 2016 #3
They understand that natural gas is cleaner than coal. Berners seem oblivious to that fact. YouDig May 2016 #19
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #20
Cleaner than coal. Look up the suffix "-er". YouDig May 2016 #21
The Sandroids were brought into the fold with all sorts of lofty promises, anotherproletariat May 2016 #27
mmkay... cui bono May 2016 #22
Wonderful! Thank you! Lucinda May 2016 #4
Nice.... LenaBaby61 May 2016 #5
Maybe they figure we can save energy by lighting our fracked water at night. Vinca May 2016 #6
Endorsements do not mean a lot, but this one is especially good. Nt seabeyond May 2016 #7
Excellent endorsement. To all those complaining about fracking auntpurl May 2016 #8
Yes, and +1000 for explaining the context Hortensis May 2016 #10
She says one thing and does another pinebox May 2016 #17
You are way off, sorry GRhodes May 2016 #28
Thank you for going into such detail. Excellent post! cui bono May 2016 #48
Clean water is a huge issue! peace13 May 2016 #29
The Colombia Free Trade legislation supports continued use of coal and PufPuf23 May 2016 #30
Note that Plan Colombia - part of neo-con plan for global dominance - PufPuf23 May 2016 #34
How does the increase in use of cheap Colombian coal in the USA and northern Europe relate PufPuf23 May 2016 #36
This is yet another false choice, just like the social vs. economic justice was a false choice cui bono May 2016 #44
Under the bus NRDC, you bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!! Darb May 2016 #9
Regarding fracking..the NRDC's position is nuanced and certainly not in-line with Bernie's ban it. DCBob May 2016 #11
"more harm than good" reddread May 2016 #12
"unless you place a value on clean water." DCBob May 2016 #13
there is no either or, they are the treasure of the commons reddread May 2016 #14
Apparently the NRDC can see it the way I, Hillary and others see it. DCBob May 2016 #15
apparently reddread May 2016 #16
Good post. auntpurl May 2016 #18
I wish people GRhodes May 2016 #31
That's nonsense. It doesn't do more harm than solar or wind. cui bono May 2016 #24
I am not "okay" with fracking.. DCBob May 2016 #33
The thing with fracking is that they have somehow gotten an okay from govt to have non-disclosure cui bono May 2016 #38
K & R! kstewart33 May 2016 #23
Based on history, I would expect Hillary Clinton to be a weak environmental POTUS. PufPuf23 May 2016 #25
Another cause against its cause. mmonk May 2016 #26
Fracking abroad, big oil donors to Clinton Foundation, supported off shore drilling and Keystone EndElectoral May 2016 #32
K & R LAS14 May 2016 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj May 2016 #37
A very clear and notable distinction Carolina May 2016 #43
I was wondering about that but it was too late to look it up before work. cui bono May 2016 #45
Awesome! workinclasszero May 2016 #39
The best way to protect natural resources is to frack the shit out of them QC May 2016 #40
K&R Carolina May 2016 #42
Dear Californians Carolina May 2016 #41
Schwartzenegger for President!!! cui bono May 2016 #46
LOL Carolina May 2016 #47
Under the bus you go, folks. Along with all the other fracking supporters. Environmentalists? Sure. mikehiggins May 2016 #49
interesting. Bill USA May 2016 #50


(4,558 posts)
1. Wow at least 2 huges ones back to back (UAW was great as well)
Tue May 31, 2016, 06:53 AM
May 2016

Very happy to see such great endorsements keep rolling in.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
3. Guess they haven't heard of this newfangled thing called 'fracking'.
Tue May 31, 2016, 06:59 AM
May 2016

That is truly shameful. There must be some corruption/ambition in that group for them to endorse someone who is pushing fracking wordwide.


Response to YouDig (Reply #19)



(1,446 posts)
27. The Sandroids were brought into the fold with all sorts of lofty promises,
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:18 PM
May 2016

things like 'free college,' 'free healthcare' and 'clean energy'. All of which everyone would love. But all of which are unrealistic to have as presidential campaign promises, because none can be achieved in the span of any presidential administration.

Hillary's platform has dealt with all of these in realistic, reasonable ways, which move towards the progressive goals, but take into account the realities of our political system. Sure, getting rid of fracking entirely is the goal...but if we do so now, what is the energy we now get from natural gas going to be replaced with? Coal, fossil fuels? We are not technologically at the point where all natural gas can be eliminated in favor of solar, hydro, wind or other types of clean energy.

Sanders is like a middle school student running for student body president. He promises all those things that ever kid would love, candy in the vending machines, no homework, etc. But anyone who understands reality knows he can't deliver. He still gets lots of votes (and much enthusiasm) because his supporters want "the powers that be" to know what they really want.


(4,311 posts)
8. Excellent endorsement. To all those complaining about fracking
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:12 AM
May 2016

I genuinely wish you would read Hillary's very clear environmental policy on her website:


This is a complicated issue and reducing it to "Hillary is for fracking while Bernie is against" doesn't speak to the realities of the situation, which is that the country still has to run while the transition to clean energy (THAT SHE IS HUGELY IN FAVOR OF) is made.

We have three options, during the time when the transition is occurring:

1. Coal
2. Foreign oil
3. Fracking

Coal has a more devastating impact on climate change than fracking. I think we can ALL agree that foreign oil is a disaster for many reasons. So of three bad options, fracking is the least bad. That is what Hillary acknowledges, and I will say that she isn't awesome at putting things into soundbites. She is a policy wonk and likes to thoroughly explain things. Bernie can come out and say "I'm against fracking!" but he doesn't explain how exactly we're all going to heat our houses and cook our food and clean our clothes while we magically transition to clean energy. I like that Hillary acknowledges reality. I like that she can see the subtlety in issues and explain them clearly. That is not a bad thing in a politician, but she gets so much flack for it.


(58,785 posts)
10. Yes, and +1000 for explaining the context
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:28 AM
May 2016

and hinting at some of the enormous complexity of this issue, requiring really careful balancing of giant needs and dangers as we transition to sustainable energy sources.

Also so agree with "I like that Hillary acknowledges reality. I like that she can see the subtlety in issues and explain them clearly. That is not a bad thing in a politician, but she gets so much flack for it." Her positions haven't always pleased me, but overall I feel extremely fortunate that we do have such a well prepared and competent person to offer the nation.


(162 posts)
28. You are way off, sorry
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:23 PM
May 2016

You don't just think about the energy sources and how they directly contribute to carbon emissions, you also have to analyze the carbon needed to make the chemicals and all that goes into getting that gas in the first place. Natural gas is contributing greatly to the coming ecological collapse. How bad does a politician have to be to not be able to sell the green industry, in the modern US? My god, people need work and the solar panel companies are capitalist enterprises. Win, win, win, for any politician that gives a damn enough and not paid off by natural gas producers.

I also would like to hear the NRDC and yourself explain exactly how much time we have to "transition" to renewable energy. Taken a look at the latest reports, the data and the IPCC reports? We don't have that "transition" period you all imagine we do. We have to radically change, and quickly. We aren't starting a transition period, we are at the end of it, and we've wasted it on non-solutions like fracking. Carbon emissions of all kinds are ignored by markets, they are impacts that the market doesn't place an actual value on, mainstream economists call these impacts "externalities", since they are external to the market. Sanders at least wants to put in place a carbon tax, which would take into account SOME of the damages that carbon emissions cause, some of the negative externalities. That would not only raise money for renewable energy, it would also make forms of energy that use less carbon directly and indirectly cheaper relative to coal, oil and natural gas.

It's also fascinating that the fracking companies, Hillary's buddies, will not release exactly what is in their fracking chemicals, since they consider this to be intellectual property, as if public health shouldn't compel them. The free trade agreements that Clinton supports are the death of the environment. Quebec recently put in place policies regarding fracking because of concerns over their drinking water. No big deal, right? Well, the fracking companies have sued the government though NAFTA's Chapter 11 and are demanding massive amounts of money because that decision harms their profits. Think that doesn't send a message to other governments? TransCanada, the XL company, is doing the same and suing our federal government, thanks to Chapter 11 of NAFTA. At the WTO recently, a gift from her husband, there was a battle between India and the US over solar panels. India had local sourcing laws, which said that a given percentage of government purchases of solar panels had to be from Indian producers. Well, the US sued India and said it was an illegal restraint of trade. India responded by initially pointing out that many US states have similar agreements and was thinking about challenging (and potentially undoing) those local sourcing agreements, which would have made it harder for states to buy from local solar panel producers. Think about that, the WTO allows for India to undo a law YOUR state put in place. The US won and India didn't challenge those laws (for complex political reasons), but it could have. THAT is the world the Clintons have created and that is what the NRDC is endorsing. Pathetic.


(8,896 posts)
30. The Colombia Free Trade legislation supports continued use of coal and
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:27 PM
May 2016

has other less than progressive effects as well.

Drummond Coal is based in Alabama and has closed all but one union domestic coal mine (slated for closure) because of the purchase and operation of one of the world's largest coal mines in Colombia that started operations in 1995, The union coal that once fueled power generation for Alabama Power is now fueled by cheap Colombia coal. Drummond is the 5th largest coal exporter in the world thanks to Colombia coal. Drummond built a railroad and transport facility in Colombia and has been implicated in the funding of paramilitaries and murder of trade unionists and native peoples in Colombia, there have been prosecutions but no convictions to date. Drummond has been convicted and paid fines for environmental problems in Colombia as there is local resistance even from Colombia establishment, not just workers and poor that live on impacted land.

Drummond operations are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Colombia free trade legislation. Drummond is a private company that has sold 20% of the Colombia operations to the Chinese. Gary Drummond, majority owner, is the richest person in Alabama and a Bushite.

The cheap coal from Colombia provided by Drummond is sold in the USA to the South and northeast. The Drummond coal is not only cheap but also of good quality and relatively low polluting compared to most coal. The large amount of cheap coal provided by Drummond is keeping coal plants online and suppresses shifts to natural gas and cleaner, renewable energies like solar and wind. The costs of transition, the low cost coal, and the fact that Drummond's Colombia operations are still relatively young in growth cycle and still expanding indicate that the Colombia free trade legislation represents a long term commitment to coal. Drummond is also the largest exporter of coal to northern Europe and has started exports to China. When there is a railroad and export facilty ion the Pacific side one could expect a great increase in exports to China. The huge reserves, high quality, cheap labor, cheap transportation, and relatively lax environmental controls indicate Drummond's Colombia coal will be here for some time. The Colombia free trade legislation locks this in and Drummond is the largest corporation in financial gain.

Here is some background;


Drummond Ltd. describes itself as "principally engaged in the business of mining, purchasing, processing and selling of coal and coal derivatives."[1]

On its website it states that it "controls reserves totaling over 2 billion tons and shipped over 24 million tons of coal in 2006. Drummond primarily produces low sulfur or compliance coal, meeting Phase II requirements of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act." The company's current mining operations are in Alabama in the United States and its La Loma mine in Cesar Department in Colombia, serving customers in both the U.S. and Europe.[1]

A November 2007 presentation to investment analysts by the President of BHP Billiton Coal, Dave Murray, noted that Drummond had an 5% share of the global coal export trade, making it the equal fifth largest coal exporter in the world. (Drummond is equal with Shenhua).[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Company History
2 Colombian Coal

2.1 Conflict in Colombia
2.2 WikiLeaks cables regarding paramilitary forces
2.3 Coverup of coal barge sinking

3 Alabama coal 3.1 Alabama Coal port expansion

4 Political and Public Influence

4.1 Coal Execs Invite Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush to Closed-Door Weekend Retreat (2015)
4.2 Political Contributions
4.3 Lobbying

5 Corporate Accountability

5.1 Labor
5.2 Human Rights

6 Protests against Drummond 6.1 July 2007: Protesters demand justice for murdered workers


Colombia's Drummond coal exports to reach 28 mil mt in 2015: reports

Colombia's second largest thermal coal miner Drummond is to export 28 million mt in 2015, up from the previous year's 23.1 million mt, Drummond Colombia president Jose Miguel Linares said.

Speaking to journalists on Friday and as reported by various Colombian news outlets, Linares said the Fenoco nighttime rail ban, which affected shipments between February and November, cost the company between 4.5 million and 5.5 million mt of exports during the year.

However, if Fenoco railings continue unhindered in 2016, total exports are expected to reach 35 million mt, with output marginally lower than that, Linares said.

In a more detailed interview with Colombian financial daily La Republica, Linares said that assuming Colombian coal is priced at an average of $48/mt FOB, coal sales might be around $1.68 billion in 2016.


Why Drummond and Glencore are accused of exporting Colombian blood coal (July 2, 2014)

The push to boycott “blood coal” exported from Colombia by Drummond and Glencore is gaining momentum in Europe after the publication of a report in which dozens of victims and victimizers testified that the multinational mining companies financed and promoted death squads.

MORE: Drummond, Glencore subsidiary financed paramilitaries in Colombia: Report

What is blood coal?

“Blood coal,” a reference to the infamous “blood diamonds” mined amid conflict conditions in Africa, is the term used by the PAX peace organization to refer to coal extracted from areas in Colombia where paramilitary violence has been particularly severe. “According to all the testimonies, the mining companies invited the paramilitaries to come over and start operations.”

According to the Dutch NGO, coal coming from the Colombian mines of the Glencore and Drummond multinationals has been stained by blood, as several members of the death squads guilty of an estimated 2,600 homicides in the areas surrounding their mining operations have testified their formation was supported and financed by the mining firms.

The report has already spurred a debate in the Dutch Parliament around the importation of Colombian coal. The NGO wants parliament to ban the trade of Colombian coal until the multinationals in question have implemented appropriate measures to guarantee the end of human rights violations related to mining and compensated victims of the violence they are accused of having financed.

A quarter of the small European country’s total coal imports is deemed “blood coal” by the NGO. In total, the Netherlands imported 15.4 million tons of coal from Colombia last year.


Garry N. Drummond, Sr. (born c. 1939) is an American heir, business executive and philanthropist from Alabama. He serves as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Drummond Company, a private coal company active in Alabama and Colombia.
Drummond Company[edit]

In 1961, Drummond joined the family business, the Drummond Company, a coal company active in Alabama.[2][5] He later served as its Chief Operating Officer.[2] He has served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since 1973.[1][2][3] The company is active in coal-mining in Alabama and Colombia.[3]

In 1979-1980, with his brother Larry and another executive, Clyde Black, Drummond was indicted of bribing three Alabama legislators, by supplying them with prostitutes.[3][6][7][8] The trial lasted three months, but it was dismissed by Judge Frank McFadden; the record is now sealed.[3][6]

In the 1980s, Drummond began looking for coal in Colombia, even though the country was at war.[3] He established their first coal mine in 1995.[3] Shortly after, the FARC bombed the railway track which carried coal from the Drummond mine to their port off the Caribbean Sea.[3]

As of 2015, Forbes lists Drummond as the wealthiest individual in Alabama, with an estimated wealth of US$980 million


(8,896 posts)
34. Note that Plan Colombia - part of neo-con plan for global dominance -
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:50 PM
May 2016

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

was put into place under Bill Clinton.

Prior to GWB, military base contracts were obtained for Soto Cano airbase in Honduras, Manta Airbase in Ecuador, and FOLs on Curacao and Aruba in the Dutch Antilles directly off the coast of Venezuela. The Manta base has been closed because an American contractor bomber FARC hostage negotiators from France and Venezuela within Ecuador. The Aruba FOL is inactive but improvements but facilities build and improvements made (air strip lengthened for fighters and bombers) and the contract with the Dutch is still in place. The Arubans did not like the FOL as early on rather than DEA and customs, US contractors sent F-15s to bomb FARC-led resistance to the Drummond railroad. Aruba operations were shifted to Curacao which was expanded.

Under POTUS Obama the USA entered contract relations for seven military bases within Colombia in support of Plan Colombia and the free trade agreement.

More about Soto Cano.



Soto Cano Air Base (commonly known as Palmerola Air Base) is a Honduran military base 5 mi (8.0 km) to the south of Comayagua in Honduras. It houses between 500-600 US troops and is also used by the Honduran Air Force academy.[2][3] The airbase became operational in 1981, changing the old location of the Honduras Air Force Academy in Toncontin, Tegucigalpa to Palmerola.[4]

The US government once used Palmerola as a base of operations to support its foreign policy objectives in the 1980s. Now the US military uses Soto Cano as a launching point for counter-narcotics missions in Central America as well as humanitarian aid missions throughout Honduras and Central America.[3]

In 1990 Honduran President Rafael Leonardo Callejas decreed that commercial cargo flights were authorized to operate from Soto Cano. In 2008 President Manuel Zelaya announced that commercial flights would begin at Palmerola within a period of 60 days, after a crash at Toncontín International Airport which resulted in 5 deaths was blamed on the runway being too short at Toncontín.[7] Following an investigation into the incident, Pilot error was found to be the main cause. The military was placed in charge of building a civilian air terminal with funding from the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (enabled by emergency decrees). This however was cancelled after Zelaya was removed from office on June 28, 2009 in the 2009 Honduran coup d'état.[8] The airport authority and the government of Honduras resumed airport relocation talks in April 2011 and announced that work on the new Palmerola airport would start by the fall of 2011 after years of efforts to replace Toncontín International with an airport at Palmerola in Comayagua where the Soto Cano Air Base is located.[9] However, in a September 25, 2011 update, President Lobo stated officials were still "evaluating the pros and cons" of constructing the new airport.[10] This comes three years after former President Manuel Zelaya had announced that all commercial flights would be transferred to Soto Cano Air Base; however, work on the new terminal at Soto Cano was then cancelled after Zelaya was removed from office on 28 June 2009 in the 2009 Honduran coup d'état.[11]


(8,896 posts)
36. How does the increase in use of cheap Colombian coal in the USA and northern Europe relate
Tue May 31, 2016, 01:51 PM
May 2016

to the transition from coal to natural gas?

The cheap coal extends the life of existing coal plants.

Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton before) and POTUS Obama (and one would suppose the Bushes and GOP) support Plan Colombia, US militarization of Colombia, and Colombia Free Trade.

Agree that environmental policy is complex and nuanced.

The NRDC Action Fund (and NRDC itself) are not the same as the 1970s and 1980s NRDC; the NRDC and affiliates have become corporate friendly (and to be cynical are buying future access with this endorsement - not likely to have been made by their more "pure" than the NRDC of the 1970s and 1980s.

Please look and respond to my other posts in this thread.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
44. This is yet another false choice, just like the social vs. economic justice was a false choice
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

but in this case there's no reason we cannot reject both rather than embrace both.

Solar power and wind power are existing viable energy solutions yet for some reason this new thing called fracking got pushed instead of the clean energy alternatives. Why is that? Could it be because big oil is making a profit from fracking? Could it be that big oil is influencing our govt with donations?

A recent Mother Jones article entitled “The Chevron Communiqués” (in the magazine’s latest print issue, not yet available online) examines Clinton’s efforts while at the State Department to push natural-gas exploration on other countries, and to help the oil giants like Chevron that stand to make big bucks from such a push. [Update: It’s now up online.] Mariah Blake reports:

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. …



Oil Companies Donated To Clinton Foundation While Lobbying State Department

By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Ned Resnikoff @resnikoff On 04/05/16 AT 5:12 PM


But Clinton’s family foundation has accepted millions of dollars directly from major fossil fuel companies — including from those that lobbied her State Department just before the agency approved a controversial pipeline delivering what environmentalists call one of the world’s dirtiest sources of energy. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to International Business Times’ request for comment.

In 2009, the Clinton-led State Department approved a permit for the 400-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, which is designed to pump up to 450,000 barrels of oil per day from the Canadian oil sands to Wisconsin (where recent polls show Democratic primary voters are concerned about its impact). According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT, Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of “oil sands” in the immediate months prior to the department's approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.

Those three oil companies have delivered between between $2.5 million and $3 million to the Clinton Foundation. That is on top of money their executives and lobbyists delivered to Clinton’s campaign and super PAC in her 2008 presidential bid — the year before she approved the pipeline.

All three companies have made substantial investments in developing the Canadian oil sands served by the Alberta Clipper. Environmental experts interviewed by IBT agreed that any major oil company operating in the tar sands benefited from the State Department’s decision to approve the pipeline because it increased the overall amount of petroleum that can now be pumped to market from the remote region.


Hillary Clinton’s Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry

by Jesse Coleman

Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $6.9 million from the fossil fuel industry.


All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $6.9 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry.






(24,689 posts)
11. Regarding fracking..the NRDC's position is nuanced and certainly not in-line with Bernie's ban it.
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:37 AM
May 2016
"While fracking has increased domestic fuel supplies and has made it easier
for natural gas to displace dirtier coal
in electricity generation, fracking
has also raised concerns about contaminated drinking water supplies,
increased air pollution, toxic waste disposal, impairment of rivers and
streams, and destruction of landscapes and wildlife habitat. NRDC
opposes expanded fracking
until effective safeguards are in place."


They oppose expanding fracking but no mention of banning all fracking entirely which would do more harm than good in our current situation.


(6,896 posts)
14. there is no either or, they are the treasure of the commons
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:44 AM
May 2016

and fracking and frackers are the single greatest environmental disaster in progress.
only war can do more damage.
forgot who I was talking to.
blah blah blah.


(24,689 posts)
15. Apparently the NRDC can see it the way I, Hillary and others see it.
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:48 AM
May 2016

Most issues are not black and white.


(4,311 posts)
18. Good post.
Tue May 31, 2016, 09:04 AM
May 2016

I wish people would discuss the realities of how to implement a climate change agenda, instead of knee-jerk reactions that sound good but don't address the complexities.


(162 posts)
31. I wish people
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:31 PM
May 2016

would read the science and be honest about the structural changes that we must rapidly put in place to avoid ecological collapse and the IPCC's worse case scenarios, which according to them are more likely with each report they issue. People pretend that they are thinking with complexity, but how many of those people have a good grasp on what is coming for us, the science, the data? I get lots of people lecturing me about how much things will cost, "pragmatism", and gradualism. None of them have the capacity to prove we have the time they assume away. What's the cost of ecological collapse? Want to put a price on that? At what point does "pragmatism" stop being pragmatic?

As I said in a post above, we aren't entering a transition period, we're ending it, and we squandered opportunities to save future generations from a pretty hellish world. Maybe if people like Clinton stopped getting money from carbon emitting industries and made the strong case for renewables, at all costs, we could have avoided our fate. Maybe if the NRDC were brave enough to push for more structural changes, we could have avoided our fate. Instead, they decide to endorse her, at this point in human history. I appreciate the work they do, but the issues required radical changes, and few in the well known environmental organizations were comfortable with that reality.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
24. That's nonsense. It doesn't do more harm than solar or wind.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:51 AM
May 2016

Someone isn't very much of an environmentalist... I can see why they endorsed Hillary then. They subscribe to the "No we can't" variety of policy.

You can't be an environmentalist and be okay with fracking.



(24,689 posts)
33. I am not "okay" with fracking..
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:36 PM
May 2016

but I agree with the NRDC that fracking has "made it easier for natural gas to displace dirtier coal in electricity generation". That is a good thing and if we simply ban all fracking all those power plants now running on natural gas may get converted back to coal.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
38. The thing with fracking is that they have somehow gotten an okay from govt to have non-disclosure
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:19 PM
May 2016

laws regarding their proprietary methods, effectively shutting out any attempt at regulation or lawsuits. We all know they are polluting our ground water with chemicals. So really, I'm not buying that it's cleaner than coal.

And, not taken into consideration when talking "clean" energy is the fact that fracking is causing earthquakes in areas where there once were virtually none.

Now, I'm not for coal either, for environmental reasons as well as worker safety reasons, but I don't see where fracking is any better. For anyone to decide fracking is fine instead of rejecting it and pushing for actual clean energy solutions which exist and are extremely viable is not an environmental stance, no matter who takes it.

ETA: GRhodes has an excellent post that covers things I missed, such as the environmental cost to create the things necessary for fracking:

Also, see my post about why Hillary is for fracking:



(8,896 posts)
25. Based on history, I would expect Hillary Clinton to be a weak environmental POTUS.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:56 AM
May 2016

Why? Fracking, big oil, Keystone, supporter of MIC, supporter of carbon offset credits, supporter of free trade deals

POTUS Obama has been weak on the environment regards to priority of the issue.

Stopping war is a most forward environmental initiative as there is nothing more damaging to the environment and wasteful of natural resources than war.

The major environmental groups that rose to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s have become corporatized and weak sauce but good careers for a few since peaking in effectiveness in the 1980s, this includes the Natural Resource Defense Council and its affiliate NRDC Action Fund. NRDC can no longer be described as a grass roots organization. NRDC focuses on politics and fund raising and is part of the status quo. I am not claiming that NRDC is a "bad" organization but that it is a mature organization subject to corporate capture and is not the same grass roots organization as when came to prominence. NRDC maintains access to politicians and corporations now by a willingness to be part of the system and stay within that box.

The wiki for NRDC mentions five court cases; three were progressive environmental initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s, the last two are from the 113th Congress and one could argue the nuance is more to protect specific corporate from grass roots interests.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council

NRDC opposed the Water Rights Protection Act (H.R. 3189; 113th Congress), a bill that would prevent federal agencies from requiring certain entities to relinquish their water rights to the United States in order to use public lands. According to opponents, the bill is too broad. They believe the bill "could also block federal fisheries agencies like the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from requiring flows that help salmon find fish ladders and safely pass over dams."

Proponents of the bill disagree with NRDC's stance on the bill, arguing that the current Federal policy defended by NRDC seeks to make users of public lands turn over water rights which in many cases they have paid state or local governments for. Operators of ski areas, ranchers, and farmers, and other users of public land say that the Federal policy defended by NRDC denies them rights to use water for which they have already paid, effectively denying them use of the land. The Water Rights Protection Act is supported by national ski area groups, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Colorado River Conservation District, the Colorado Association of Conservation Districts, and other interests threatened by existing Federal water policy in the West which the NRDC is defending.

NRDC supported the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 (H.R. 5057; 113th Congress), a bill that would exempt certain external power supplies from complying with standards set forth in a final rule published by the United States Department of Energy in February 2014. The United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce describes the bill as a bill that "provides regulatory relief by making a simple technical correction to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to exempt certain power supply (EPS) service and spare parts from federal efficiency standards."

Effect on administrative law

The NRDC has been involved in the following Supreme Court cases interpreting United States administrative law.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978), which held that courts could not impose additional procedural requirements on administrative agencies beyond that required by the agency's organic statute or the Administrative Procedure Act.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which gave administrative agencies broad discretion to interpret statute to make policy changes if Congressional intent was unclear. Chevron is now the most-cited case in American case law, even more so than all the citations to famous decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade combined.
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 78 (1983) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held to be valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact during the licensing of nuclear power plants.

Regards the NRDC Action Fund:

http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/about/ and,


One should note that about 85% of NRDC Action Fund contributions go to pay W-2 salaries of between $175,000 and $422,000 and these same individuals each had between $35,000 to $63,000 of income from actions related to the NRDC but not NRDC Action Fund W-2 income.


(52,589 posts)
26. Another cause against its cause.
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:07 PM
May 2016

Voting against your own interests isn't just for poor southern whites anymore.


(4,213 posts)
32. Fracking abroad, big oil donors to Clinton Foundation, supported off shore drilling and Keystone
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:31 PM
May 2016

Yeah, an environmental giant.

Response to Henhouse (Original post)

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
45. I was wondering about that but it was too late to look it up before work.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

Yet again, a PAC endorses Hillary.

Thank you for posting that!



(26,371 posts)
40. The best way to protect natural resources is to frack the shit out of them
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:23 PM
May 2016

and then douse them with Roundup.


(6,960 posts)
41. Dear Californians
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:25 PM
May 2016

Please do the right thing. You elected Ronald Reagan governor and from there, he was able to launch a presidential bid in 1976 and 1980. He went from unremarkable actor, to shilling for GE, to CA governor to the two-term POTUS who started US/us on this disastrous oligarchic, corporatist slide to hell.

Next Tuesday, PLEASE don't be fooled by HRC's campaign rhetoric and increased appearances in CA. Don't vote for HRC out of the fear promulgated in Gov. Brown's statement, a fear that maintains the status quo. Please send US the anti-Reagan, the man of real hope and change.

Vote for Bernie Sanders. Send a message to the third way, to the bought and paid for (corporate bribed) DINOs, to the establishment, to those in the Democratic Party who want you to vote AGAINST the opposition rather than FOR someone you can believe in, meaning voting yet again for the not so lesser of two evils.

This time there is a real choice between Wall Street Red and Wall Street Blue, and his name is Bernie Sanders.

Do what you can to START undoing Reagan!

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Major environmental group...