HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Major environmental group... » Reply #44

Response to auntpurl (Reply #8)

Tue May 31, 2016, 02:37 PM

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 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. …

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 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.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832


Hmm...


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.

...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/


Hmm...

.


.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Henhouse May 2016 OP
Amimnoch May 2016 #1
peace13 May 2016 #2
cui bono May 2016 #3
YouDig May 2016 #19
Name removed May 2016 #20
YouDig May 2016 #21
anotherproletariat May 2016 #27
cui bono May 2016 #22
Lucinda May 2016 #4
LenaBaby61 May 2016 #5
Vinca May 2016 #6
seabeyond May 2016 #7
auntpurl May 2016 #8
Hortensis May 2016 #10
pinebox May 2016 #17
GRhodes May 2016 #28
cui bono May 2016 #48
peace13 May 2016 #29
PufPuf23 May 2016 #30
PufPuf23 May 2016 #34
PufPuf23 May 2016 #36
LineLineNew Reply This is yet another false choice, just like the social vs. economic justice was a false choice
cui bono May 2016 #44
Darb May 2016 #9
DCBob May 2016 #11
reddread May 2016 #12
DCBob May 2016 #13
reddread May 2016 #14
DCBob May 2016 #15
reddread May 2016 #16
auntpurl May 2016 #18
GRhodes May 2016 #31
cui bono May 2016 #24
DCBob May 2016 #33
cui bono May 2016 #38
kstewart33 May 2016 #23
PufPuf23 May 2016 #25
mmonk May 2016 #26
EndElectoral May 2016 #32
LAS14 May 2016 #35
cyberpj May 2016 #37
Carolina May 2016 #43
cui bono May 2016 #45
workinclasszero May 2016 #39
QC May 2016 #40
Carolina May 2016 #42
Carolina May 2016 #41
cui bono May 2016 #46
Carolina May 2016 #47
mikehiggins May 2016 #49
Bill USA May 2016 #50
Please login to view edit histories.