3 ms·
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 w
by tryitnow 10y 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 10y agoSo 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.