Fracking

Sanders and Clinton Both Against Fracking: Flint Democratic Debate

The candidates are either ignorant or pandering

|

FlintDemDebate
Fox59

During the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders both weighed in against hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling to produce oil and natural gas. Never mind that the fracking revolution has essentially doubled U.S. daily oil production from a recent low of 5 million barrels in 2008 to nearly 10 million barrels now. The same technology has also greatly increased daily domestic natural gas production from 44 billion cubic feet in 2005 to 76 billion cubic feet now. Rising U.S. oil and gas production has been partially responsible for the recent steep fall in the prices for both. In fact, production of both has increased so much that the U.S. is actually exporting crude oil and natural gas.

When asked about fracking Secretary Clinton answered:

I don't support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it—number three—unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that's the best approach, because right now, there places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.

FrackingSmallImage
nau.edu

So first, we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.

Sanders responded:

My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking. … And I talk to scientists who tell me that fracking is doing terrible things to water systems all over this country.

First, contrary to assertions by both Clinton and Sanders, a preliminary report from the Environmental Protection Agency last year noted that the agency's scientists "did not find evidence" that fracking has "led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." Second, most states already require that drilling companies reveal what chemicals they are using to frack wells and list them on the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry.

Third, the ongoing switch from coal to natural gas (methane) to generate electricity is largely responsible, according to the EPA, for the recent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 7.4 billion tons in 2005 to 6.9 billion tons in 2014. (On the other hand, some recent research suggests that U.S. methane emissions into the atmosphere have also increased, but burning natural gas has offset the global warming effects of any such increase.)

Clinton and Sanders either (A) don't know the actual results of research on fracking or (B) they are simply pandering to the environmentalist wing of their party. I pick (B).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

40 responses to “Sanders and Clinton Both Against Fracking: Flint Democratic Debate

  1. The candidates are either ignorant or pandering

    This probably doesn’t need to be an either/or statement.

    1. They are ignorantly pandering….or are panderingly ignorant?

      1. yes

      2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      3. They know just enough to pander, which is always the right amount for a politician.

    2. They know about the studies,they just ignore them.There not based on top man models like climate change.

  2. Clinton and Sanders either (A) don’t know the actual results of research on fracking or (B) they are simply pandering to the environmentalist wing of their party. I pick (B).

    I pick (C) all of the above.

  3. And I talk to scientists who tell me that fracking is doing terrible things to water systems all over this country.

    “I have really smart guys, experts, really classy scientists, who are gonna fix this whole water business by stopping fracking and I’m going to cap off all the wells and I’m gonna make the frackers pay for it. Let’s make American government great again!”

    Also, he has “green jobs” special interests to answer to just like Hillary.

    1. He’s a socialist,’green jobs’ depend on government loans and subsidies.See how that works?

  4. These jobs are not jobs,but the rape of mother earth.Besides there’s a big ball of fire a few thousand miles away that will give us all the energy needed in light and wind.I will now go out and feed my unicorns.

  5. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.

    So much excess verbiage, when we’ve got to regulate everything would suffice.

  6. Calling them the “enviromentalist” wing gives them too much credit. They are more the misanthrope, NIMBY, luddite faction.

    1. Can’t spell environmentalist without mental.

    2. They don’t want to ‘export’ jobs but,will make it necessary to import oil.

    3. More than a few misanthropes around here :/

  7. The majority of the cost of everything you buy is the cost of the energy it takes to produce and deliver that item.

    Make no mistake about it, the people who want energy to be more expensive hate your guts and want you to suffer. They want your children to have less food, for you to have a much lower standard of living, and if you press them about it they will admit they want you dead.

    “Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.” Translation: “My plan is to fuck you to death.”

    That is exactly what these two evil sacks of shit are saying. How much clapping and cheering did they get when they said it?

    1. Many don’t make the connection. It’s like GMO’S ,round up .More food,less land,less water used,less chemicals needed.This country has a wealth of food and resources and these idiots are pissed about it.And the talent to create so much wealth.

      1. “…the talent to create so much wealth.”

        This can’t be stressed enough. Also, it is more than talent. Anyone who has ever been to an offshore rig will immediately be awed by the technological marvel and sheer courage it takes to work in such a place.

        1. No guts,no glory.

    2. The majority of the cost of everything you buy is the cost of the energy it takes to produce and deliver that item.

      many many many people don’t ever equate the two. My cousin for instance big pro enviromental person has no idea what the real world consequences would be for the policies she shills for. She’s not a bad person and is otherwise pretty rational just has literally no idea that switching energy sources would have an economic cost.

      1. “She’s not a bad person…”

        Having good intentions does not make one a good person.

        1. understood, but it also does not make one a bad person.

          1. It does if it leads to poverty and misery.

      2. I don’t believe they don’t know,they just don’t care,or,are so fucking stupid that breathing takes all their mental energy.Dooming billions to poverty,after all the recent gains is pure evil.

        1. I don’t believe they don’t know

          many people who are casually involved are indeed ignorant or bury their heads in the sand about what the long term goals are for many of these groups ie: less people.

          1. Ignorance an be cured ,stupid ,and ,or evil is forever.

      3. She probably does not believe that anything useful might have negative consequences and that there are tradeoffs involved. Any negative consequence has to be the result of a conspiracy to commit criminal malfeasance, and could be eliminated if the bad actors only cared more

  8. My cousin for instance big pro enviromental person has no idea what the real world consequences would be for the policies she shills for.

    Electricity comes from walls. You know, that thingy you plug your iphone charger into.

    1. http://www.political-humor.org…..food.shtml

      The level of ignorance out there is astounding. I wonder how much of it is willful.

      1. You mean like people who believe in evolution,but,deny that humans evolved as omnivores and to change the environment to support them?

  9. I would like someone to ask Sanders who these scientists are and what terrible things are being done? Of course they never get called out on their BS

  10. Rising U.S. oil and gas production has been partially responsible for the recent steep fall in the prices for both

    Waiting with bated breath for my local utilities to pass along the savings to me.

    1. Why would ;they,businesses need to pocket a wind fall too.Oil won;t matter,and gas and electric are regulated in price to consumers.

  11. They’re against fracking? Sounds like more and more people in the areas where fracking is occurring. Like Oklahoma.

    I note you don’t mention earthquakes this time. Maybe because both the U.S. Geological Survey AND the Oklahoma Geo. Survey both have stated that the injection of waste water is mostly likely the cause of the outstanding increase in earthquakes that Oklahoma is going through.

    “In 2009, there were 20 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Last year, there were 890. In 2009, no quake measured 4.0 or greater. Last year, 30 did.”

    And so Clinton says its best left to states including new regulations? Well, that too sounds like Republican controlled Oklahoma, where new regulations are taking effect to limit the amount of waster water injected. Why would they do that? Earthquakes, due to fracking.

    1. “Last month, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, asked oil producers operating in the northwest part of the state to reduce by 40 percent the amount of wastewater they dispose of deep underground.”

    2. *meant to say “earthquakes doe to injection of waste water from fracking.”

      1. Why are those earthquakes a concern?

      2. Why are those earthquakes a concern?

  12. I say let the proggies live with the carbon-free, nuclear-free, and hydro-free power grid they are screaming for, then see how long they last went the Salon server goes dark and they can’t make their lattes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.