Do you support “fracking”?
Everyone knows Bernie’s answer: NO.
Hillary did her thing:
"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — 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 are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."
Let’s just regulate it better. No.
We already have lots of rules, and they are being broken. Who the hell can watch to see whats being pumped into the ground?
From the 2011 House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into fracking:
oil and gas service companies have injected over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states between 2005 and 2009. In addition, the investigation finds that no oil and gas service companies have sought – and no state and federal regulators have issued – permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing, which appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
“Our investigation has shown that for the past several years, the fracking industry has ignored federal regulations and a mutually binding agreement, and injected over 30 million gallons of one of the most toxic chemicals into the ground, potentially contaminating drinking water aquifers in communities nationwide,” said Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
They obviously aren’t afraid of the government. Yet.
Environmental Action asks:
Clinton must explain why she decried the poisoning of Flint’s drinking water on one day, and released a policy platform that would poison our water, air and climate with fracking on the next.
They make several important points:
At a time when scientists are telling us that we must leave 80 percent of fossil fuels in the ground to avert the worst case scenarios of climate catastrophe, Clinton’s platform is the antithesis of the “Leave It In The Ground” Manifesto. Further, it would increase investments in fracked-gas infrastructure instead of a renewable energy revolution. To choose to plow countless dollars and jobs into building a new generation of pipelines and export terminals, when the clean energy economy is already creating more jobs than the fossil fuel industry is ridiculous.
Clinton’s plan even considers technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a long-since unproven technology with no future in a global warming action plan. We need to vastly reduce the amount of global warming pollution we produce, not invest in technology that doesn’t work and can only be used by our worst polluters. Further, we all know, based on our country’s legacy of targeting Black and Brown communities for the placement of toxic waste, where CCS facilities would likely be situated — certainly not communities like Chappaqua, NY.
Her answer to a simple question leaves enough “wiggle room” to drive a truck full of money through.
The Politifact ruling
Sanders said that Clinton supported and continues "to support fracking."
As secretary of state, Clinton supported and promoted fracking around the world. As a 2016 candidate, her support comes with conditions such as local choice, stronger environmental regulation and chemicals.
Sanders’ claim is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.
Hillary Clinton supports fracking.
Bernie…?
Not so much.
UPDATE:
SMALL BIRD AGREES, POOPS ON HILLARY’S MOTORCADE.
