Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Clinton Fracking Machine

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 18, 2015, 10:28 p.m. EST by turbocharger (1756)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The duopoly knows one way of doing things, one route, one path. You may get a few crumbs here or there, to keep you involved, keep that feeling of participation in your minds.... But it marches in one direction regardless.

If you don't like fracking, forget about finding a political answer to it. Only by creating other avenues will you raise the bar and either destroy demand, or force politicians to reckon with you.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world?CMP=share_btn_fb

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Shule (2638) 2 years ago

I don't understand why some here don't get it. That Hillary Clinton and gang are the darlings of the Wall Street 1%. Why, Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock Investments, the largest Investment outfit on Wall Street ($4 trillion + in capital under their wing) is bankrolling Hillary so that she can make him Treasury Secretary. (I wonder why he wants the job so bad? He's already more powerful than the Prez.) Voting in Dems like her amounts to putting the wolf in charge of the hen house, but there is a Primary out there in the near future where we can put our 2 cents in to stop it from happening. Yet we don't hear the Dems on this web blog saying anything about that. ???

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

Hilary is all in with the Israel First Crowd & Vampire Squid Goldman Sachs.Ew.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I see you created yet another poser diversion page. That's cool. Check this out:

Senate Republicans reject Obama call to end 'big oil' tax breaks

Obama targets oil industry tax breaks

The White House spokesman calls the Senate vote "unfortunate"

Senate Republicans block a Democratic bill to end oil company tax breaks President Obama says redirect the oil subsidies to clean energy development Democrats and Republicans both see a political advantage in debating the issue Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic measure championed by President Barack Obama to end tax breaks for the major oil companies.

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshold of 60 in favor, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.

Obama and Democrats had pushed it in an attempt to gain political advantage as rising gas prices continue to hurt and anger American voters in an election year.

In remarks shortly before the Senate voted, Obama said the nation will be watching to see where Congress stands on the issue.

"With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden. "... I think it's time they got by without more help from taxpayers, who are having a tough enough time paying their bills and filling up their tanks."

After the vote, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney labeled the result "unfortunate."

Obama's energy policy, which emphasizes investment in alternative sources, has repeatedly been attacked by Republicans as contributing to high gas prices and stunting domestic oil development.

The president has targeted the roughly $2 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies as a potential new revenue source for clean energy development.

In his remarks Thursday, Obama emphasized steps his administration has taken to boost domestic oil and natural gas production, seeking to deflect the GOP criticism. He said that now is the time to choose whether to continue to give unneeded subsidies to a thriving industry or to make critical investments in other energy sources.

"Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising," Obama said. "Investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; in fuel-efficient cars and trucks and homes and buildings. That's the future. That's the only way we'll break this cycle of high gas prices that happens year after year after year as the economy is growing."

To end his statement, Obama declared his belief in the nation's ability to rise to any challenge and become the leader of a new global energy industry in the coming century. He framed the oil subsidy vote as a choice between that vision and protecting the status quo, adding: "Today, the American people are going to be watching Congress to see if they have that same faith."

Obama defends his policy on oil pipeline

The Democratic-sponsored Senate measure -- which was opposed by most conservatives -- would have repealed subsidies currently benefiting BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. Savings would have been used to renew various alternative clean energy initiatives and reduce the deficit.

Democrats sought to cast Republicans as defenders of unpopular big oil companies, while Republicans highlighted rising pump prices on Obama's watch.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, complained Thursday morning that the upcoming vote amounted to political theater because everyone, including the sponsors, knew it would have no effect on gas prices.

"Day after day after day, Democrats ask us all to come out here, not so we can make an actual difference in the lives of working Americans and families struggling to fill the gas tank, but so we can watch them stage votes for show," McConnell said. "For some reason, they thought they could put political points on the board if the American people saw them voting for a tax hike that we all knew ahead of time didn't have the votes to pass."

His Democratic counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opened debate on the oil subsidy measure Monday by noting that big oil companies are "making money hand over fist."

"If Republicans continue to stand up for oil companies making record profits, one thing will be obvious: Republicans care less about bringing down gas prices than about helping big oil companies that don't need the help," Reid said.

He insisted that repealing "wasteful subsidies" wouldn't lead to a hike in oil and gas prices -- an assertion dismissed by Republicans.

Energy secretary hammered on gas prices

Democrats have proposed "raising taxes on American energy manufacturers -- something common sense and basic economics tell us will lead to even higher prices at the pump," McConnell said Wednesday. "Frankly, I can't think of a better way to illustrate how completely out of touch they are on this issue."

Democrats have repeatedly raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to provide tax subsidies for highly profitable oil and gas companies. Legislation similar to the current bill was narrowly rejected by the Senate last May.

Among other things, the measure killed on Thursday would have ended oil production's categorization under the tax code as a form of domestic manufacturing eligible for a deduction worth 6% of net income, according to New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, the bill's author.

The measure also would have prevented oil companies from claiming foreign royalty payments as a credit against American taxes, and cut the ability of companies to deduct numerous costs associated with the drilling process.

"With oil prices over $100 per barrel, Big Oil does not need a taxpayer incentive to explore," Menendez's office asserted in a written statement.

Brian Johnson, a senior tax adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil interests in Washington, told CNN the bill unfairly targeted one industry. Among other things, he noted that many industries currently qualify for the domestic manufacturing deduction at a higher rate of 9%.

"How is this a legitimate tax deduction for Starbucks or The New York Times at 9% and somehow it's a 'subsidy' for the oil and natural gas industry at a lesser 6%? The answer is it's not," he said. "We're already penalized."

Repealing the royalty payment credit would be tantamount to double taxation and could cripple American-based operations, he argued.

"Raising taxes will not lower energy prices for American families and business," the American Petroleum Institute's president, Jack Gerard, said in a written statement. "It's time to work together on a national energy strategy that focuses on developing all American energy resources."

In the short term, bills such as the one blocked on Thursday are unlikely to affect gas prices or change the market enough to shift voter attitudes, argued Joseph Stanislaw, founder of J.A. Stanislaw Group, an energy and investment advisory firm.

"The global oil market has more impact on the presidential election than the president has on the global oil market," Stanislaw said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

We already went through this oil tax subsidy thing a few years ago. Enough Democrats were bribed so that they blatantly fucked over the people that voted for them.

And then you all came back, slobbering for more.

Mightly short memory of the American voter. A good argument for chemtrails.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The push for clean renewable and well regulated energy has come almost exclusively from Democrats. Not to mention the votes.

Same goes for the push to let big oil pay it's own way.

The opposition has come almost exclusively from Republicans.

Democrats. They are the lesser evil on nearly every issue.

[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 2 years ago

The DemoCRAPs only "PUSH" for the 99%, when they know they don't have the votes to get it passed. Political theater for their gullible minions.

Well they sure as hell didn't need to "PUSH" IN 2009. They had the power given to them to get mountains of legislation passed for the 99%. The American people turned out in record numbers in 2008 to elect the DemoCRAPs to full control of our federal govt. I'm embarassed to admit it, but I too voted for Obama in 2008! I was starving for all the "Hope and Change" he was promising!

Did he give us what he promised, no, NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!! Obama gave us:

  • more lies,
  • more War,
  • more Wall st,
  • more Goldman Sachs,
  • more corporate bailouts,
  • more poverty,
  • more wealth inequality
  • more police brutality
  • more corrupt judges
  • more Free Trade,
  • more Neoliberalism,
  • more MIC,
  • more spying,
  • more drones
  • more corruption
  • more evil,
  • more destruction
  • more hopelessness,
  • more corporate control
  • more prisons,
  • more hate
  • moar, mohr, MORE!!!

Then idiots come on here and want MORE of that shit. We tried voting for the Demo CRAPs in 2008 (me too). It didn't work. Never again. NO MORE !!!

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Well then, explain this:

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/ (276 to consider along with your own um, I guess it's your attempt at research?)

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Another markdown. Say that reminds me.

GOP kills Florida solar, takes the sun out of Sunshine State

Florida right-wing state regulators launched an attack against solar energy on Nov. 25, when they approved proposals to slash the state's energy efficiency goals by over 90 percent and terminate solar rebate programs by the end of 2015. This was done in order to appease investor-owned utilities that contribute to climate change, including Duke Energy, Tampa Electric, and Florida Power & Light (FPL) - the three companies that submitted the proposal.

The decision came after two hours of debate, with members of the state Public Service Commission (PSC) voting 3-2 in favor of the plan. The two commissioners who gave a "No" vote were Lisa Edgar and Julie Brown, who said that they would not agree with a plan that altered state energy policy so severely. "It's not the direction I would go in," Edgar remarked.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), which stood in opposition to the utility proposals, said this was "completely inconsistent with what the other states are doing. We believe there may have been laws broken today by not setting goals." In other words, he underscored the need for utilities, under law, to have some policy for meeting energy efficiency requirements. "It's a very sad day for the state of Florida," he concluded.

What this means is that the Sunshine State, which has been called "ground zero for climate change" by some environmental experts, will see less clean energy projects and further development of utilities that promote the use of fossil fuels. The state PSC approved Duke Energy for a $1.5 billion natural gas plant that will replace a disused nuclear plant in Crystal River, Florida. Duke, along with the other two companies, insisted during their proposals that solar rebate programs are not cost-effective, and argued that they would furthermore reduce rates for customers starting Jan. 1. That "reduction" is a meager 16 cents for Duke ratepayers,  $1.14 for Tampa Electric, and $1.94 for FPL. And most of those savings, reported the Tampa Bay Times, are the result of lower fuel prices, which are beyond the utilities' control anyway.

"Today, the PSC failed Florida families by caving to big polluters," said Kelly Martin, senior representative of the Florida Sierra Club. "Florida already ranks in the bottom half of the nation for energy efficiency, and now will only fall farther behind, costing families and businesses in the process."

Back in October, Florida residents and environmentalists took to the streets in St. Petersburg to vocally oppose the proposals of these utilities, rallying outside Duke Energy's office and calling for the state to embrace solar energy. The demonstration drew an estimated 150-200 people and was organized by SACE, whose executive director Smith added, "We've seen that [Republican state governor] Rick Scott's administration has done nothing to support solar power. The Public Service Commission under his watch has been very hostile and critical of solar power."

Scott, who this year won re-election against Democrat Charlie Crist, is a notorious climate change denier, and according to Reuters "supported utility rate hikes to cover massive investments in new power lines, natural gas pipelines, and nuclear power plants that environmentalists oppose, while the state's renewable energy programs, including solar installation rebates, were dismantled." According to Grist.org, Scott also rejected federal stimulus dollars to build a high-speed rail line in the state, which is badly lacking public transportation.

Republicans and big corporations, as per the usual, are inhibiting a state's ability to gravitate toward clean energy at a time when it has never been more important. Experts agree that amongst the U.S. states most vulnerable to climate change, Florida is at the top of the list. Harold Wanless, chair of the University of Miami's geological sciences department, said that global warming could render the city of Miami "the American Atlantis" by the end of the century, when the area is expected to be entirely underwater. "Miami is doomed," he declared. "Flooding everywhere, pooling in streets, flooding parking lots, turning intersections into submarine crossings - that is what global warming will look like."

Meanwhile, said Smith, when it comes to pro-fossil fuel companies in Florida, "nobody's holding these guys accountable. We have had a breakdown in regulatory oversight." And the line between the Public Service Commission "and the monopoly utilities they are charged with regulating is becoming increasingly blurred." In an official statement, SACE added that the PSC's vote represented "an abdication of its responsibility as steward for energy consumers. We as an organization are going to try and find every outlet possible to continue to fight."

http://peoplesworld.org/gop-kills-florida-solar-takes-the-sun-out-of-sunshine-state/

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

And another.

White House goes solar, Republicans go postal.

President Obama’s “commitment to lead by example to increase the use of clean energy in the U.S.” met with stiff resistance from republicans who railed against the sun and the wind.

“Wind has been shown to be a destructive force of nature” said John Boehner, “It can easily kill if we don’t contain it. Not only that, how clean can the wind be when it raises dust and dirt all over the place whenever it blows?

“When a Kardashian wins an Oscar, then I’ll believe climate change” said Mitch McConnel

Obama enjoys sun and wind simultaneously as Republicans slink into the shadow of the Koch brothers onnell. Until then Americans should just turn the air conditioner up a little more in summer and the heat up a little more in winter.

If Obama wanted to do something for energy independence, he’d end the war on coal. That’s a war we don’t want. The rest are OK.”

Those solar panels on the White House roof can fly off and injure a Congressperson on their way to a ‘Benghazi Probe’ hearing. Then how will we get to slam Hillary Clinton’s chances in 2016? Are we making this stuff up? I don’t think so.”

“The sun can wipe us out as a species” said a spokesperson for ‘Citizens Rallying against Sun Harm’ (CRASH) “And then where would we go? First you install solar panels on the White House, next thing you know we’re not invading some country and enriching our own arms merchants.”

Exxon-Mobil released a study which shows how many jobs we’ll lose if we allow the sun to power our vital electric grid. “What happens when the clouds cover the sun? What happens at night when the sun goes down? These are questions we’ll need to address with a bi-partisan committee of 11 Republicans and a Democrat thrown in for fun” smirked Rand Paul as he stepped into his Tesla model S which was converted to high octane gas in a high school shop project sponsored by the Koch brothers.

http://www.theradiobuzz.com/2014/05/10/white-house-goes-solar-republicans-go-postal/

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

GOP Leaders Fume over Obama’s Climate Deal with China

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last week that if President Obama goes ahead with his threat to impose immigration reform by executive fiat, that it would be tantamount to “waving a red flag in front of a bull.” 

On Wednesday, Obama waved another red flag in front of the GOP bulls – a surprise climate- change agreement with China President Xi Jinping that commits the U.S. to emitting 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005 –nearly double the pace of reduction the administration previously pledged. 

U.S., China Sign Symbolic Emissions Plan, Play Down Rivalry 

China -- the world’s number producer of carbon emissions just ahead of the U.S. -- would not have to reduce its emissions levels so much as taper them off by 2030, while increasing its dependence on so-called clean energy sources such as wind and solar power. 

Putting aside any disagreement over climate change, President Obama’s unilateral action has once again blindsided Republicans and sent a signal that he will act on his own during the last two plus years of his term. If he goes ahead with executive action on immigration reform, the gulf between the President and the GOP will be wider than ever, portending more government gridlock.

Obama, White House aides and environmentalists hailed the agreement as a major breakthrough that will create momentum for other world leaders heading into next year’s major international climate change meeting in Paris, where representatives will take another big step towards a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have closely linked to global warming.

Actually, the drumbeat began late last month when leaders of the 28 European Union nations agreed on what they called the world’s most ambitious climate change targets for 2030 – managing to overcome divisions between poorer countries that are strongly dependent on fossil fuels for energy and wealthier countries that are more reliant on “green power.”

In another surprise Sept. 30, Obama and visiting India Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced an important agreement that would greatly increase India’s use of renewable fuels – including solar power – and gradually reduce global emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, industrial chemicals that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. India is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The U.S. and China together account for more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, so together we have an especially important role to play in fighting climate change,” White House counselor John Podesta wrote in an email yesterday.

Related: India’s Resistance to Climate Change Gives Way to Deal   

Opponents of this new, more dramatic commitment – as it has been from almost the day Obama took office six years ago – are Republicans and some moderate Democrats who view any measure to rein in carbon emissions as a frontal assault on utility companies, major industrial plants and the struggling coal industry. McConnell premised much of his reelection campaign on fighting Environmental Protection Agency regulations that would hurt Kentucky coal miners and utility plants. McConnell predictably lashed out at the U.S-China agreement as a bad bargain that he would resist.

“The president continues to send a signal that he has no intention of moving toward the middle,” McConnell told reporters during a morning coffee with 10 newly elected Republican senators in his office. “I was particularly distressed by the deal he’s reached with the Chinese on his current trip, which, as I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years, while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.”

McConnell, who is expected to be the new Senate Majority Leader when Republicans take control of the Senate in January, made it clear that Obama is quickly squandering any prospects for bipartisan deal making in the 114th Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH),  issued a statement of his own that Obama “intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact,” and vowed that he and other Republican lawmakers would make it a high priority to continue to block the president’s energy and environmental policies for the remainder of his term.

Related: Obama Fights Global Warming, One Hot Spot at a Time   

Other GOP critics agreed with the leadership that Obama struck a bad deal with the Chinese, one that puts the onus on U.S. industry to scale back, close power plants and lay off workers, while the Chinese must only move more quickly towards alternative energy sources.

“I don’t think it’s a good deal for us,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told MSNBC yesterday. “There are no limitations on China’s emissions, so I don’t see how that accomplishes what the President was trying to do.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is line to become the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the agreement “hollow and not believable.” Inhofe has written and spoken widely to advance his theory that global warming is a hoax.

Jake Schmidt, Director of International Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), disagreed, telling MSNBC, “These are two of the biggest emitters, so the kinds of signals they send in terms of how they’re going to support more clean energy is both powerful in terms of reducing emissions.”

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said Obama has emphasized the importance of curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change for months, according to the The Washington Post. “The president has been very clear in the direction he is moving,” McCarthy said. “He is not changing at all.”

Related: Climate Change Costs Could Soar to the Billions

While  technically there is  little that GOP lawmakers can do to block the U.S.-China climate agreement, McConnell’s aides “have already started investigating ways they could block or delay implementation of the EPA’s proposed rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, which is set to become final next June,” according to The Post.

The EPA in June proposed a rule designed to reduce carbon emissions from existing coal-fired plants by as much as a third by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. The regulation has prompted aggressive lobbying from industry and environmental groups. Existing power plants – the largest source of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, account for 38 percent of the total emissions.

GOP strategies might include lawsuits and efforts by governors and state officials in red states to refuse to comply with the EPA mandate, not unlike the scores of states that refused to participate in the Affordable Care Act or expand their Medicaid programs with federal aid.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/11/13/GOP-Leaders-Fume-over-Obama-s-Climate-Deal-China