4 ms·

Bernie Sanders is now calling for a nationwide ban on fracking

33 points by neurobuddha 11y ago

misterbishop 11y ago
Na-Na Naaaa-Na Na-Na Naaaa-Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye Fracking.
mizchief2 11y ago
Who cares? That loser won't be president and I doubt he will keep his seat. But yea, shut down one of the few industries still proving a large number of good jobs and helps American become energy independent.
e0m 11y ago
I've seen plenty of articles about the potential negative impacts of fracking, but does anyone have a well-written piece on domestic fracking's upsides? Cheap gas as economic stimulus and a lessening dependence on foreign oil seem like they hold some sway on the issue.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Perhaps check out: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-fracking/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-frackin... (Don't let the title get in your way.)
- JBReefer 11y ago
  http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/e... is a good start, but the biggest benefits come from being less reliant on petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Venezula and Russia, as well as causing economic pressure which reduces fundamentalism in the bellicose petrostates.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    Instead, it will create the petrostates in our own country. We still have to buy the end result from energy companies one way or another. The only ones who profit from fracking directly are the energy companies who sell into the commoditized market.
mc32 11y ago
Sometimes I think Sanders is just the anti-Trump. And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling is Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric. What I mean by opposite sides of the same coin is that neither, if elected, would deliver on their unrealistic goals and policies they have set themselves up for. So, I feel their maneuvering, if either is elected will lead to disappointment by the electorate. The immediate problem with fracturing as I see it is unregulated wastewater discharge. They need to regulate that. They don't need to throw out the baby with the bath(waste)water.
- wccrawford 11y ago
  "And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling I Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric." That sounds to me like, "I'm sure he'll straighten up if I marry him." It simply doesn't work like that. I'm not denying that Sanders has more intention behind his words. But I don't expect Trump to suddenly start making good and reasoned policy decisions just because he gets elected.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    There was a gold-played in the New York Times I saw once speculating on a Trump/Sanders debate that went something like this: Moderator: Mr Trump, how will construct your wall, and how will you pay for it if Mexico refuses? Trump: We aren't gonna take no for an answer. Mexico is gonna pay for that wall, believe me. Moderator: Senator Sanders, how will you pass your policy ideas through a recalcitrant congress? Sanders: We need a political revolution! People need to vote in large numbers and elect people who will support my bills. Moderator: Thank you both for your detailed and informative responses.
    - mc32 11y ago
      I think that sums them up and the process pretty well. Sadly true.
    - r00fus 11y ago
      The amusing part is that Hillary will face the same pressures as Sanders in trying to push even moderate or GOP-appeasing policy through the current congress. So the only policy that would get passed is the ones which benefit the funders of both the GOP and centrist Democrats - ie, corporate friendly legislation like the TPP and/or perhaps revenue repatriation tax holiday. Sanders' benefit (from a progressive viewpoint) is that at the very least, he is a guaranteed veto on stuff like that. Meanwhile he would be drumming daily on voting out those who oppose his policies instead of caving to the GOP/Centrists.
b0t 11y ago
I left reddit to come to HN to get away from constant Bernie/Trump posts. Oh well.
pnut 11y ago
This is silly! Absolutism is not tenable. Fracking may be bad for the environment in absolute terms, but it also has effectively made the US energy independent. Geopolitically, this is a brain dead position to take.
- r00fus 11y ago
  By "energy independent" you still mean the US is dependent on fossil fuels? Because fracking is not sustainable, it's still extraction. The natural gas that is extracted is owned by the energy companies, not the US. Sure, everyone who's ok with poisoning water tables [0] and flammable faucets [1] so that energy companies can increase their profits, please raise your hand! [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/fracking-poisons-californ_b_5986758.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/fracking-poiso... [1] https://www.rt.com/usa/flammable-water-dakota-fracking-023/ https://www.rt.com/usa/flammable-water-dakota-fracking-023/
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  >it also has effectively made the US energy independent. Source?
  - pnut 11y ago
    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812
supremeanger 11y ago
Sending more jobs overseas. Good guy/10
djschnei 11y ago
The president doesn't legislate. This means nothing.
sevensor 11y ago
Here in PA, the Marcellus shale is pretty well fracked already. A ban would do precious little to stop shale gas extraction here, since the fracking operations have mostly moved on. Time and money would be much better spent ensuring that transportation and storage operations are conducted safely.
tryitnow 11y ago
I like Sanders, but I can't agree with this. How will he deal with the following: 1) less natural gas could mean more coal => worse carbon emissions 2) this would almost certainly lead to increases in energy prices. These would hit the poor the hardest. 3) So if the US isn't producing then who would be? This is great news for the Saudis, Putin and others. The above three points are not my original ideas. They were explained in a NYT article a day or two ago.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  So kill the earth as long as it helps America in the short-term and it's the more affordable option? I'm personally a libertarian and I find it funny that the left has spent damn near a half century getting people hysterical about global warming, telling them it's the greatest threat to humanity, and then they don't really take the measures that scientists/researches claim we need to take against climate change, and now they want to expand fracking because the easily obtainable natural gas isn't enough for them -- we gotta burn all the oil. I think the oil/gas industry have bought many members of congress (even Hillary agrees with this) and that's why their sector of the economy is always finding new ways to "innovate". If the green/clean energy industry was paying republicans money they would be the ones in an economic and regulatory environment that's conducive to innovation.

33 points by neurobuddha 11y ago

Na-Na Naaaa-Na Na-Na Naaaa-Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye Fracking.

Who cares? That loser won't be president and I doubt he will keep his seat. But yea, shut down one of the few industries still proving a large number of good jobs and helps American become energy independent.

e0m 11y ago

I've seen plenty of articles about the potential negative impacts of fracking, but does anyone have a well-written piece on domestic fracking's upsides? Cheap gas as economic stimulus and a lessening dependence on foreign oil seem like they hold some sway on the issue.

mturmon 11y ago
Perhaps check out: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-fracking/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-frackin... (Don't let the title get in your way.)
JBReefer 11y ago
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/e... is a good start, but the biggest benefits come from being less reliant on petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Venezula and Russia, as well as causing economic pressure which reduces fundamentalism in the bellicose petrostates.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Instead, it will create the petrostates in our own country. We still have to buy the end result from energy companies one way or another. The only ones who profit from fracking directly are the energy companies who sell into the commoditized market.

mc32 11y ago

Sometimes I think Sanders is just the anti-Trump. And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling is Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric. What I mean by opposite sides of the same coin is that neither, if elected, would deliver on their unrealistic goals and policies they have set themselves up for. So, I feel their maneuvering, if either is elected will lead to disappointment by the electorate. The immediate problem with fracturing as I see it is unregulated wastewater discharge. They need to regulate that. They don't need to throw out the baby with the bath(waste)water.

wccrawford 11y ago
"And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling I Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric." That sounds to me like, "I'm sure he'll straighten up if I marry him." It simply doesn't work like that. I'm not denying that Sanders has more intention behind his words. But I don't expect Trump to suddenly start making good and reasoned policy decisions just because he gets elected.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  There was a gold-played in the New York Times I saw once speculating on a Trump/Sanders debate that went something like this: Moderator: Mr Trump, how will construct your wall, and how will you pay for it if Mexico refuses? Trump: We aren't gonna take no for an answer. Mexico is gonna pay for that wall, believe me. Moderator: Senator Sanders, how will you pass your policy ideas through a recalcitrant congress? Sanders: We need a political revolution! People need to vote in large numbers and elect people who will support my bills. Moderator: Thank you both for your detailed and informative responses.
  - mc32 11y ago
    I think that sums them up and the process pretty well. Sadly true.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    The amusing part is that Hillary will face the same pressures as Sanders in trying to push even moderate or GOP-appeasing policy through the current congress. So the only policy that would get passed is the ones which benefit the funders of both the GOP and centrist Democrats - ie, corporate friendly legislation like the TPP and/or perhaps revenue repatriation tax holiday. Sanders' benefit (from a progressive viewpoint) is that at the very least, he is a guaranteed veto on stuff like that. Meanwhile he would be drumming daily on voting out those who oppose his policies instead of caving to the GOP/Centrists.

b0t 11y ago

I left reddit to come to HN to get away from constant Bernie/Trump posts. Oh well.

pnut 11y ago

This is silly! Absolutism is not tenable. Fracking may be bad for the environment in absolute terms, but it also has effectively made the US energy independent. Geopolitically, this is a brain dead position to take.

r00fus 11y ago
By "energy independent" you still mean the US is dependent on fossil fuels? Because fracking is not sustainable, it's still extraction. The natural gas that is extracted is owned by the energy companies, not the US. Sure, everyone who's ok with poisoning water tables [0] and flammable faucets [1] so that energy companies can increase their profits, please raise your hand! [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/fracking-poisons-californ_b_5986758.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/fracking-poiso... [1] https://www.rt.com/usa/flammable-water-dakota-fracking-023/ https://www.rt.com/usa/flammable-water-dakota-fracking-023/
zxcvcxz 11y ago
>it also has effectively made the US energy independent. Source?
- pnut 11y ago
  https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812

supremeanger 11y ago

Sending more jobs overseas. Good guy/10

djschnei 11y ago

The president doesn't legislate. This means nothing.

sevensor 11y ago

Here in PA, the Marcellus shale is pretty well fracked already. A ban would do precious little to stop shale gas extraction here, since the fracking operations have mostly moved on. Time and money would be much better spent ensuring that transportation and storage operations are conducted safely.

tryitnow 11y ago

I like Sanders, but I can't agree with this. How will he deal with the following: 1) less natural gas could mean more coal => worse carbon emissions 2) this would almost certainly lead to increases in energy prices. These would hit the poor the hardest. 3) So if the US isn't producing then who would be? This is great news for the Saudis, Putin and others. The above three points are not my original ideas. They were explained in a NYT article a day or two ago.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
So kill the earth as long as it helps America in the short-term and it's the more affordable option? I'm personally a libertarian and I find it funny that the left has spent damn near a half century getting people hysterical about global warming, telling them it's the greatest threat to humanity, and then they don't really take the measures that scientists/researches claim we need to take against climate change, and now they want to expand fracking because the easily obtainable natural gas isn't enough for them -- we gotta burn all the oil. I think the oil/gas industry have bought many members of congress (even Hillary agrees with this) and that's why their sector of the economy is always finding new ways to "innovate". If the green/clean energy industry was paying republicans money they would be the ones in an economic and regulatory environment that's conducive to innovation.