SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As Clinton Equivocates on Fracking, Sanders Has One Answer: 'No.'
Democratic presidential candidates debate environmental issues in Flint, Michigan on Sunday
Mar 07, 2016
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both claim to oppose fracking, but only one of them has plans to ban it.
During Sunday's Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Michigan, where environmental issues are especially critical as residents grapple with a water contamination crisis, moderators asked the candidates where they stand on the controversial gas extraction method that involves injecting chemicals and water deep underground.
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. 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."
Sanders countered, "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."
As the audience applauded, Sanders added, "This is a crisis we've got to deal with now."
Watch below:
The contrast between the candidates' responses, even as they came to similar conclusions, demonstrates how much Clinton "will continue to struggle to convince climate advocates that she is serious about addressing the crisis until she comes out for a full ban on fracking," said Yong Jung Cho, a campaign coordinator at the climate advocacy group 350 Action.
It is not the first time that the distinction between the candidates' environmental policies was made apparent.
And as Rebecca Leber points out at Grist, Clinton's continuing slide to the left on environmental issues may be a deliberate move to hide an unflattering climate legacy:
As secretary of state in 2010, Clinton argued in favor of gas as "the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today," and said that "if developed, shale gas could make an important contribution to our region's energy supply, just as it does now for the United States." Her office, meanwhile, promoted fracking in developing nations.
Cho added, "Clinton has moved from supporting fracking to insisting on regulations that would make it impossible to frack in most places. It's high time to come out against it all together."
"Scientists are clear that the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change is to leave all fossil fuels, including natural gas, in the ground," Cho said. "We need to see clearer signs that if elected president she won't do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry corporations, whose campaign contributions she still hasn't refused to accept."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both claim to oppose fracking, but only one of them has plans to ban it.
During Sunday's Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Michigan, where environmental issues are especially critical as residents grapple with a water contamination crisis, moderators asked the candidates where they stand on the controversial gas extraction method that involves injecting chemicals and water deep underground.
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. 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."
Sanders countered, "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."
As the audience applauded, Sanders added, "This is a crisis we've got to deal with now."
Watch below:
The contrast between the candidates' responses, even as they came to similar conclusions, demonstrates how much Clinton "will continue to struggle to convince climate advocates that she is serious about addressing the crisis until she comes out for a full ban on fracking," said Yong Jung Cho, a campaign coordinator at the climate advocacy group 350 Action.
It is not the first time that the distinction between the candidates' environmental policies was made apparent.
And as Rebecca Leber points out at Grist, Clinton's continuing slide to the left on environmental issues may be a deliberate move to hide an unflattering climate legacy:
As secretary of state in 2010, Clinton argued in favor of gas as "the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today," and said that "if developed, shale gas could make an important contribution to our region's energy supply, just as it does now for the United States." Her office, meanwhile, promoted fracking in developing nations.
Cho added, "Clinton has moved from supporting fracking to insisting on regulations that would make it impossible to frack in most places. It's high time to come out against it all together."
"Scientists are clear that the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change is to leave all fossil fuels, including natural gas, in the ground," Cho said. "We need to see clearer signs that if elected president she won't do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry corporations, whose campaign contributions she still hasn't refused to accept."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both claim to oppose fracking, but only one of them has plans to ban it.
During Sunday's Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Michigan, where environmental issues are especially critical as residents grapple with a water contamination crisis, moderators asked the candidates where they stand on the controversial gas extraction method that involves injecting chemicals and water deep underground.
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. 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."
Sanders countered, "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."
As the audience applauded, Sanders added, "This is a crisis we've got to deal with now."
Watch below:
The contrast between the candidates' responses, even as they came to similar conclusions, demonstrates how much Clinton "will continue to struggle to convince climate advocates that she is serious about addressing the crisis until she comes out for a full ban on fracking," said Yong Jung Cho, a campaign coordinator at the climate advocacy group 350 Action.
It is not the first time that the distinction between the candidates' environmental policies was made apparent.
And as Rebecca Leber points out at Grist, Clinton's continuing slide to the left on environmental issues may be a deliberate move to hide an unflattering climate legacy:
As secretary of state in 2010, Clinton argued in favor of gas as "the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today," and said that "if developed, shale gas could make an important contribution to our region's energy supply, just as it does now for the United States." Her office, meanwhile, promoted fracking in developing nations.
Cho added, "Clinton has moved from supporting fracking to insisting on regulations that would make it impossible to frack in most places. It's high time to come out against it all together."
"Scientists are clear that the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change is to leave all fossil fuels, including natural gas, in the ground," Cho said. "We need to see clearer signs that if elected president she won't do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry corporations, whose campaign contributions she still hasn't refused to accept."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.