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.
Regardless of fixing the underlying mismanagement of fracking waste, which is never going to get fixed due to the incentives to oil rig service teams not to, the problem is we shouldn't be burning natural gas.
There is enough clean, renewable wind and solar in the US to satisfy all of our energy needs, several times over. To replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear in their entirety. Its time we stop being pathetic on this issue as a country and scale up.
US Wind Potential: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/pdfs/windsmodel4pub1-1-9base200904en... (warning: PDF)
US Solar Potential: http://energy.gov/maps/solar-energy-potential
Agreed, in the long term. But we have to get there from here, and I think that a clean-burning resource like gas is probably the lowest priority problem on our long list of disgusting energy issues.
However, when industry gives 0 shits for external costs because they can 'get away with it' then I can see taking a hardline approach. E.g. Bernie is essentially saying: "Hey you guys screwed up, you polluted the environment, tried to hide this fact by funding shoddy research. You could have been adults at the table by acting on the early reports or done better on the cleanup, but you didn't do the right thing. So we the people need to punish you, and there is no better way than by taking away your toys."
It's a hardline stance, but hell if your tap water became flammable you might feel the above is perfectly reasonable. Now add this across the nation with all the other examples of large entities unfairly getting away with it and we can all understand why Trump/Sanders are popular.
I think this is one of two immediate problems with fracking, the other being that there's far too little oversight when wells are being drilled, so we have no idea whether they've been cemented properly. Most of the problems we've had in PA have resulted from poorly cemented (and thus leaky) wells.
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.
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.
The only ones who profit from fracking directly are the energy companies who sell into the commoditized market.
(Don't let the title get in your way.)
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.
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-poiso... [1] https://www.rt.com/usa/flammable-water-dakota-fracking-023/
Source?
The above three points are not my original ideas. They were explained in a NYT article a day or two ago.
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.
