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

GRhodes

(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.

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
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Major environmental group...»Reply #28