Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuels

Dear Friends,

As I have said before, I am pleased that Secretary Clinton has come out against drilling in the Arctic, against the Keystone XL pipeline and in favor of renewable energy.  The problem is that she is once again taking baby steps when giant steps are needed.

Try to find out where Secretary Clinton stands on fracking.  I thought I had found the answer when I came across an article in the Huffington Post entitled "Hillary Clinton Calls For Banning Fracking On Public Lands, With Some Conditions" from July 2015 (here).  Unfortunately upon reading the article, she actually called for phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels from Federal lands over some unstated period of time.

Clinton said she would not stop the extraction right away, but would try to make the transition as quickly as possible.
"We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights," Clinton told a town hall meeting in Dover, New Hampshire.
Clinton said the United States needs to balance its aspiration to be an energy super power with the need to lead on addressing climate change.

Oh how she loves to hedge her bets.  She says she is against it, but she says she will continue it.  She always wants it both ways.

Consider also her position on lifting the ban on exporting crude oil from the United States.   After months of silence on the issue, in mid-September she came out in favor of lifting the ban if the oil and gas industry made concessions.  Here are a few paragraphs from a Reuters article about her comments (here).

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Friday she would support lifting the 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude exports only if the measure included concessions from the oil and gas industry to move toward cleaner energy.

Clinton said she had not yet seen any legislation on lifting the ban that included concessions from the fossil fuel industry, In the absence of that, "I don't think the ban should be lifted," Clinton told reporters.

Clinton did not specify exactly what kind of concessions she wants from the oil and gas industry.

She is now on record as in favor of lifting the ban so long as there are unstated concessions, and she also on record as being against lifting the ban unless there are unstated concessions.

Bernie Sanders' position on both of these issues is very clear and has remained unchanged over time.  Senator Sanders believes that fracking should be banned. Senator Sanders is against lifting the ban on the export of crude oil from the United States.  In August 2015, Senator Sanders posted this statement on his campaign Twitter account.

We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and move to 100 percent renewable energy - and we need to act immediately.

Hillary Clinton seems incapable of making a plain straightforward statement of her positions.  You can agree or disagree with Senator Sanders, but you certainly know where he stands.  Senator Clinton wants to find a way to agree with you regardless of what you believe.

There may be many reasons why Secretary Clinton acts in this way on this issue as well as many others.  I came across an article in the Huffington Post from July 2015 entitled, "Hillary Clinton's Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists" (here).  The first two paragraphs read as follows:

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.
A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

The network of Clinton charities and foundations has also been the recipient of millions of dollars from big business, including oil and gas companies.  In February 2015, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, "Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties" (here).  The article catalogues the millions of dollars that have flowed into Clinton related charities and foundations from major corporations.  The article begins with these two paragraphs:

Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.
At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.

The article continues

The Wall Street Journal identified the companies involved with both Clinton-family charitable endeavors and with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department by examining large corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation, then reviewing lobbying-disclosure reports filed by those companies. At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them. ...

Corporate donations to politically connected charities aren’t illegal so long as they aren’t in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.

In some cases, donations came after Mrs. Clinton took action that helped a company. In other cases, the donation came first. In some instances, donations came both before and after. All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.

The article notes that Exxon Mobil has contributed $2 million to the Clinton Global Initiatives and since 2007 has contributed $16.8 million to Vital Voices a charity co-founded by Secretary Clinton.  It also contributes to the Clinton Foundation; the article notes a $250,000 contribution in 2013.

If you believe in the old adage about following the money, all of these contributions to Clinton related charities and campaigns must have some impact on Secretary Clinton's positions or lack thereof.

Senator Sanders has pledged not to accept contributions from the oil and gas industry.  We have a clear choice as to the type of candidate we want for President.  Bernie Sanders is a true liberal with long standing progressive positions on the issues and an unbending commitment to those positions.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Who will fight global warming?

Dear Friends,

For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, President Obama has given Shell approval to drill in the Arctic.  After the approval was announced, Hillary Clinton broke her silence on the issue and said that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic was not worth the risk.  Bernie Sanders has long opposed drilling in the Arctic.

Hillary Clinton is right that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is not worth the risk.  However, the more important reason for not permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is that we need to move away from fossil fuels now not gradually over decades as fossil fuel reserves are drawn down.  We must leave most of the already know reserves in the ground.  We do not need to find new ones.  We need to focus on alternative renewable green energy.

An editorial in The Guardian (here) ends with this paragraph which I think is perfect.

This is depressing evidence of a reluctance to tackle the biggest challenge of keeping the increase in global temperatures below two degrees. Since March, the Guardian has been campaigning to persuade investors that ultimately the majority of known fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground. That requires a revolution not just in thinking now, but in the way we understand economic development. It can no longer be a question of exploitation of resources. Now sustainable economies must be built on a deliberate exercise in forgoing them. Every time a new area of fossil fuel exploitation is opened up, even if it is shale gas which appears less polluting than coal or oil, the risk is that the transition drifts a little further downstream. The Obama decision on Arctic drilling on the face of it is wrong because it jeopardises a unique environment. But it is even worse than that. It is another barrier to a change on which a sustainable future depends.

I think it is important to assess our Presidential candidates on whether or not they understand what the Guardian editorial is saying.  Since all of the Republican candidates are still focused on drill baby drill, I can exclude them from this analysis.  I will focus on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

It is clear that Bernie Sanders understands that we need to stop drilling and focus on alternative fuels. He was one of 18 Senators that sent President Obama a letter urging him to deny Shell the right to drill.  The following is a quote from that letter:

Opening development on a new fossil fuel reservoir in the Arctic not only puts the natural resources, ecosystems and the dependent communities at risk, it also contradicts the President’s Climate Action Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change. It is an unacceptable and irresponsible decision,

In addition to the letter, Bernie Sanders issued a statement saying:

At a time when our planet is warming due to climate change, the last thing our environment needs is more drilling. What we need is for Congress and the White House to move toward clean energy such as solar, wind and biomass.

While Hillary Clinton has said drilling in the Arctic is not worth the risk and that she would dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, she has never made it clear that she understands that we need to stop drilling.  She has good plans for incentivizing alternative fuels, but they are vague at this time.  And then there is her refusal to take a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  An article in The New York Times (here) contains this quote which is a great summary of where Hillary Clinton is at this point in time.

"Hillary Clinton is just half the way there,” said Bill McKibben, head of the group 350.org, which has led the grass-roots movement calling for Mr. Obama to reject the Keystone pipeline. “This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast. Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Climate change is an existential issue for the earth and all of its inhabitants.  We need leaders who are bold and passionate about stopping global warming.  We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels now and that means no more approvals for fossil fuel projects.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal