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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Major environmental group makes first ever endorsement of Hillary Clinton [View all]cui bono
(19,926 posts)44. This is yet another false choice, just like the social vs. economic justice was a false choice
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 magazines latest print issue, not yet available online) examines Clintons 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: Its now up online.] Mariah Blake reports:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-fracking/
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://grist.org/climate-energy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-fracking/
Hmmm...
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 Clintons 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 worlds 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 Clintons 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 Departments decision to approve the pipeline because it increased the overall amount of petroleum that can now be pumped to market from the remote region.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Ned Resnikoff @resnikoff On 04/05/16 AT 5:12 PM
...
But Clintons 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 worlds 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 Clintons 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 Departments decision to approve the pipeline because it increased the overall amount of petroleum that can now be pumped to market from the remote region.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
Hmm...
Hillary Clintons 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.
...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
Hmm...
.
.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Major environmental group makes first ever endorsement of Hillary Clinton [View all]
Henhouse
May 2016
OP
They understand that natural gas is cleaner than coal. Berners seem oblivious to that fact.
YouDig
May 2016
#19
The Sandroids were brought into the fold with all sorts of lofty promises,
anotherproletariat
May 2016
#27
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
Regarding fracking..the NRDC's position is nuanced and certainly not in-line with Bernie's ban it.
DCBob
May 2016
#11
The thing with fracking is that they have somehow gotten an okay from govt to have non-disclosure
cui bono
May 2016
#38
Based on history, I would expect Hillary Clinton to be a weak environmental POTUS.
PufPuf23
May 2016
#25
Fracking abroad, big oil donors to Clinton Foundation, supported off shore drilling and Keystone
EndElectoral
May 2016
#32
Under the bus you go, folks. Along with all the other fracking supporters. Environmentalists? Sure.
mikehiggins
May 2016
#49