The lack of vision is devastating to behold.
Putting any investment dollars, putting the people's drinking water at risk, putting the environment through the endless earthquakes (Hello Oklahoma), putting yet more roads through the countryside breaking up ecosystems further is just adding to the acceleration of Climate Change.
Better instead to pivot to solar and wind on a massive scale with the accompanying jobs here, both for installation and for ongoing maintenance.
Tell the people of Pennsylvania and elsewhere that pivoting to green infrastructure is going to positively affect their family budget as they sell energy back to the grid. Tell them that they and their children won't get cancer from the fracking cocktail of chemicals.
Think of banning fracking in terms of "first, do no harm" and vote accordingly.
43
There are lessons that others - in Oklahoma fir example - have already learned about frack gas.
1) It's an economic scam - that leaves environmental ruin behind
2) It causes frack-quakes.
29
I grew up and went to school across the Ohio River from this new plant. Most of my extended family (sister, aunts, uncles still live there). After college I moved away and worked in the oil industry until retiring 10 years ago.
During my early career (1980's) I worked as a research engineer evaluating and designing hydraulic fracturing for gas wells in Texas.
"Fracking" can be environmentally dangerous (reported earthquakes in Oklahoma) and poorly disposed of fracturing fluid seeping into groundwater and steams. To varying degrees it can be performed more safely depending on regulations and oversight (but not completely free of environmental impacts). It depends on the national, state and local governments to manage it. Left to their own oversight, the oil and gas companies will do it the "cheapest and most productive way" possible.
This area has had a continuous poor economy since the steel industry rapidly declined after the mid 1970's. The Ohio River (on which this plant is built - like the earlier steel mills in nearby Midland, Ambridge and Aliquippa) could "tell a tale" of pollution. And it was in 1969 - 1970 that Time magazine declared that Beaver Valley (and Beaver County) had the worst air quality in the U.S..
For the folks living there (much like the coal miners in nearby West Virginia) it's always been a trade off between earning a reasonable wage and the environment/ safety.
27
I don't know whether this area of Pennsylvania is susceptible to earthquakes, but, if it is, these folks are in for a terrible shock if fracking goes forward. They should compare notes with the people of Oklahoma who have plenty of fracking jobs and the earthquakes to prove it.
7
If Trump wins, fracking definitely continues, so support the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump (which is neither Warren or Sanders). I doubt that any Democrat elected, regardless of ideology, will end fracking anyway.
6
We're all just Fossil Fuel addicts,
Got those O/G needles in our arms.
Tho' we do feel minor conflicts,
Cause' frackin' does our kids such harm.
Big Steel went to Asia,
While their old mills go to rust.
So we'll put our faith in frackin',
At least, till the next Bust.
6
This piece is awfully light on the people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who have combustible water and have seen pets and livestock perish in areas where fracking is prolific. What about the homes that have to have water delivered to them because their well water is poison? (Read "The Real Cost of Fracking). Incomplete news story, tilted toward fracking interests: I have come to expect this from corporate news media. We will easily exceed 2C increase in warming with this kind of journalism.
15
As we try to save our world, choices must be taken, but we MUST be willing to help those who will be affected by the ban.
11
The problem is complicated...trying to offer a simple solution(ban) won’t be the answer. As one man said, “If I don’t have a job, I can’t support my family.”
7
To take a stand against the profit of mighty Wall Street is not for the weak of heart. The assigned values of fracking will not impress voters who are able to look beyond the day's dollar.
7
It's a very difficult thing to watch the middle class worker get caught up and suffer from possible loss of work that creates a danger to the public and future of the current delicate ecology.
I am pretty sure that those farmers working in the poppy fields are worried about their jobs as the fight against heroin continues. People working for big pharma companies that compete with cheaper, foreign product might take a hit on their wages. Regular, hard working people who make a decent wage fracking the land; what will they do if fracking becomes illegal? What happened to the makers of Asbestos, Thalidomide, etc. and now President Trump, to the delight of farmers struggling to make a living, has curtailed laws that prevented the dumping and seepage of pollutants into the waterways.
There are those that wear t-0shirts that say they would rather be Russian than vote Democrat. I would rather be on welfare than put my kid through college working for the destruction of the planet.
16
They forget there systems waiting to line already. It can get pretty windy n the plains.
The subtitle for this article says that fracking “epitomizes a Democratic quandary: Appeal to swing voters or energize a liberal movement?“
But here’s a better question to ask: Continue destroying our planet or begin to act responsibly for future generations?
24
If the U.S. government is held hostage by essentially a handful of voters, then American democracy is truly dead. Hydro-fracking in the U.S. is a prime obstacle to the kind of global warming treaty that can only save civilization, humanity. Such a treaty can only be negotiated, enacted if the U.S. demonstrates its unwavering commitment to decisively move away from carbon energy.
12
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren need to show how they are going to energize their progressives to compensate for the loss of many in the middle, including nominal Democrats like me.
I don't think they can.
13
Every conversation I have had, over decades, about fracking or similar, with people in Pa or NY, if the person thought they were going to make money, whether it be by 'mining' their land or through trucking or just a better job, then it was a Great thing. And this was true even with people that were doing very well, financially. And this was true even for people who owned land that had no possibility of being developed for gas extraction. But if laws, bans or restrictions were going to prevent that, whomever was for those things, was evil (my word, not theirs). It's like they are being prevented from cashing in their winning lottery ticket. What we will do for the illusion of a few dollars. Someday in the future maybe we'll be able to say, "Here, let me light that glass of water for you."
I'm thinking, for a candidate to advocate a ban on fracking, you have no chance in rural Pa.
10
Fracking is not worth the damage it causes.
"Fracking" will ABSOLUTELY poison surrounding Ground Water, for that local Community's Water Supply - Forever.
And Politicians think that (a) money &/or (b) votes are more important than Clean Water for the Public ?? Get real .
Anyone who values a big Stock Return over Clean Water better get their priorities straight. With all of today's Science, we cannot "make" clean water. Clean water is becoming scarce, and will soon be far more valuable than Gold. Really.
American Politics, for far too long, has been predicated on making the World "Safe" for major-polluting Big Oil, and over-priced Defense Contractors, to "defend" that Endeavor. Fracking / Tar-Sands Oil are the floor sweepings of that filthy Industry, and are beyond dangerously polluting.
Our Nation, regardless of which State, cannot continue to poison the Public's Clean Water. Shell Oil can take a hike, in their own Fracked poisoned pond.
If we don't stop all Fracking, and now, our Grandchildren will not have clean Water.
15
Banning fracking does not ban natural gas, just a process that is more environmentally disastrous. We need to move away from fossil fuels and gas is a bridge to more sustainable energy sources. This means we can still use natural gas and it is plentiful, but not at the cost of radioactive waste water, contamination of the water table, and causing earth quakes among other problems fracking causes.
In 2000 fracked gas made up 7% of the approximately 55 billion cubic feet per day supply of gas in the US. In 2019 it is 67%of gas produced in the over 70 billion cubic feet per day produced. Fracking increased our supply and lowered the cost of producing natural gas.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26112
We do not have to frack the gas unless profits for the large energy concerns are more important that the environmental risks we are willing to endure. There are traditional methods for extracting gas, NY still has active gas wells, just not fracked wells.
Science has given us alternative energy sources, but not alternatives to clean air, water, and land.
18
@Luke That's great for you. I suppose you aren't going to lose your job because of your beliefs. But what about the people interviewed in this article? If there is a fracking ban, they could lose theirs. Someone will pay, and the fact that it isn't you provides no solace.
We need to get rid of Trump. Sanders and Warren are unelectable. Isn't it better to elect someone with more moderate views that can get independents (like me) to vote for them?
10
@Peter We have a climate crisis. Joe saying he is going to rejoin Paris is about as weak as you can get. The Paris agreement is voluntary and is resulting in a giant game of global chicken.
7
Perhaps this article from today's Guardian newspaper might be useful for politicians supporting fracking:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/27/pennsylvania-residents-mariner-east-pipelines-drinking-water-contamination
7
Mr Biden recently was in New Hampshire. Spoke to hot headed coal miners who are in denial their coal and fossil fuels are causing climate catastrophe and killing us. He had guts which the GOP don’t . A heckler got up and said something and Mr Biden said we will all be dead if nothing is done. He helped shut down 350 coal mines in the USA out of 500 and i bet Trump reopened them all. The mayor of Pittsburgh Pa needs to go to jail for crimes against humanity . Pope Francis said to oil men recently you harm the environment you harm humanity. These Democrats in the article need to stress coal is history or we will be. I don’t know about the rest of the NYT’s readers but i like living with clean air and water. Don’t you.
10
@D.j.j.k. How did you survive the predicted climate catastrophe, when everyone around you perished?
Please share.
Let the Dems do what they usually do and not tell Pennsylvanians their real intentions until the morning after the election.
5
@David
When you are fleeing from the floods caused by carbon buildup from your coal remember your words and weap. To late then.
2
Ban Fracking
It has contaminated water and made people very sick and it has destroyed and splintered communities. How many cancers are acceptable? There are now sustainable alternatives for heating and cooling our homes and innovative ways to reduce energy demand. America, rise up and create solutions for all instead of just a few. Think big!
The Fracking/Cracking industry is subsidized by tax dollars. Ask yourself. Why?
Over the course of one generation Plastics have polluted our soil our water and our air. There are microplastics everywhere. Toxins adhere to them. We'll never be rid of them. All we can do is stop putting them into our environment, but first we need to stop pretending that we can't live without most of them. Turning frack gas into plastics to keep the industry afloat is short sighted.
12
Fracking causes earthquakes polluted well waters . In Dimock pa a small Northeastern Pa town a HB0 movie show a few years ago the fracking companies polluted there water forever with kerosene smelling water. You cant’ drink it you can smell it taking a shower. The mayor of Pittsburgh needs to be put on charges crimes against humanity this is what will happen there. Pope Francis said recently to oil men you harm the environment you harm humanity. Case closed. The Democrats in this article need to come out and talk about coal ash a product left after coal is burned. It is so toxic with lead, cadmium, mercury .
The evil coal companies put it in mountains to stay forever seeping poisons into your water supplies. In Fell township Pa they have had a mountain just like the above burn now out of control for decades. Imagine living near that smell. Lock that mayor up and our profoundly immoral Trump for supporting this toxic product.
5
All that's necessary is for Sanders and Warren to pretend they've changed their positions. Once in office (if that should happen), the winner could simply change back to their original position on the subject.
This is done all the time and would simply be business as usual.
warren/sanders have literally zero chance of winning the electoral college. they're amusing for now (for being so utterly ridiculous) but let's hope democrats put forth bloomberg, biden, buttigieg, so they at least have a very small chance of winning..
12
Yeah because American families are not struggling at all to pay for expensive for profit “healthcare” or for high interest student debt.
4
@Zejee,
Then progressives should stick to realistic proposals where there is consensus, like health care.
Kicking people out of their jobs with no “TANGIBLE” alternative will not win in the ballot box with the very people taking the brunt of the edict.
You get one or two “big ideas”. After that, you start turning people off.
6
If you ban fracking in the United States our home heating bills would soar. Most homes are heated by fuel oil or natural gas. Some houses are heated by electric, but much of the electric is created by the use of natural gas. And if you think solar or wind could generate enough energy, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
29
@Sue That's pretty much the long and short of it. Indeed, many states (such as Wyoming) are still mostly coal powered for electricity. Burning LNG in those states is much cleaner than trying to switch to coal-fired electricity.
CO2 is a problem that needs to be solved - pronto - but the infrastructure's not there to simply turn off the spigot.
4
Banning fracking is bad science.
Fracking has resulted in CHEAP gas which has put many coal plants (and mining companies) out of business. The time to think about banning fracking is when the last coal company has gone.
I know, eventually, we need to stop burning gas. Let us not let the goal of "perfection" stop us from making big progress
25
@WL your assertion about the cleanliness of gas is not correct. If you count the methane released as part of the natural gas extraction/distribution processes (methane is 84-105 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2), then natural gas has a greenhouse gas footprint that matches or exceeds that of coal.
Google it.
Natural gas gas recently risen to the number one spot in driving carbon emissions. Not even counting catastrophic gas leaks such as Aliso Canyon in LA, the amount of emissions from gas is staggering, and set to grow if LNG expands as planned.
12
Fracking is putting the coal industry out of business by making natural gas cheap. Fracking cut the cost of gas from $12 per million cubic feet to $2. That drop also made solar and wind energy cheaper because solar and wind plants use gas as a backup on calm nights.
Ideally, we should use only solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro power, but litigious Luddites have blocked nuclear power for 50 years.
22
Fracking is not a new thing. It’s the chief way oil and gas wells have been completed for a long time.
6
I don't know what Bloomberg's position on it is but both Biden and Klobuchar I think put fracking in the bridge fuel category. Which I agree with. Mayor Pete - who knows what his position is, and frankly, who cares as he isn't a serious contender. Calling for an outright ban can't be regarded as anything but foolhardy now.
12
What every Democratic candidate must do is define their program for a going-green transition period, no matter their desired rate of reduction to fossil fuel production. Beyond just Pennsylvania, many people in many states are dependent on the fossil fuel industry and its downstream industries. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be affected by any serious implementation of "going green." How do the candidates plan to support and help transition the lives of the many people impacted by the transition to a sustainable future?
8
Instead of pumping chemicals in to the ground to release the oil and natural gas from shale deposits why not capture the huge amounts of natural being flared and vented into the atmoshere?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/climate/natural-gas-flaring-exxon-bp.html?searchResultPosition=7
Am I missing something?
7
@mlb4ever
Yes. You are missing the fact that the gas being flared is coming out of wells all over the US and would require pipelines to gather and transport it. If such gathering systems and pipelines were in place, the flaring would not be taking place.
5
And furthermore, when the oil and gas companies try to build new gas pipelines the Democrats fight them to the death.
5
One way around this is to make fracking companies disclose what is in the fracking fluids and how they leach into the ground water that people drink. Then let the people choose if they want fracking in their communities.
13
"In Crucial Pennsylvania, Democrats Worry a Fracking Ban Could Sink Them"
I think the opposite: banning fracking will HELP them win.
Pennsylvanians are not as stupid and short sighted as the president, are they? They know fracking will do their kids in, and would rather go to work for sustainable power, like solar.
11
@Scientist
Visit the wind and solars ‘farms’ in northern LA County and SE Kern County and reconsider ‘sustainability.’
Vast areas have been industrialized, wildflower fields destroyed, mountain views ruined, Joshua Trees dug up, etc.
Someone’s going to have to clean up these ‘farms’ someday at great cost and restore the land.
5
I did not know any dems could have been reduced to woo the right and outrightly abandon their agenda.
Do MsFriedman and MrGoldmacher know what voters want? The answer is clear. While the oil industry gain votes through fake promises, we do not need to do the same.
3
“In Pennsylvania, you’re talking hundreds of thousands of related jobs that would be — they would be unemployed overnight,”
To the residents of Pennsylvania: Go ahead and frack. But keep in mind that your water supply will be tainted forever and petroleum’s end is just around the corner.
Now, you can be short-sighted and vote for any Republican. Or you can embrace the future, save your water supplies, and look forward to an environment not dominated by oil and it’s associated pollution.
Forward or Backward. Which do you choose?
P.S. Jobs? For which? A dying, polluting industry or a sustainable, climate-friendly, growth industry?
Frankly the choice seems obvious.
BTW, Elizabeth Warren is my candidate. But you’re free to choose any.
8
@PC
You’re right,
There’s no economy with out clean water and air. Fracking is all over PA destroying the water and air. But many dumb people think they are going to get rich.
But they are not. Instead their kids are getting weird cancers.
5
Listening to the Daily episode on this issue and following up by reading this article has been illuminating. Yet the light cast did not help me determine an ultimately clear solution—rather, I get a sense of trying to trace the path of a light through a dense fog.
I read through all 57 comments posted prior to my own, and it is clear to me that the fellow posters are sincere in their belief and evaluation that a proposed fracking ban might be political suicide. And clearly a ban would have tremendous immediate effects on a personal level—jobs lost, healthcare lost.
As a Bernie supporter in New York with a deep commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, it may seem like I should be the natural enemy of those profiled in this piece, and yet I'm not. I take to heart the campaign slogan, "Not me. Us." And despite the deep cynicism I feel with politics and a general feeling of powerlessness, I do believe that a radical empathy is a good path forward. "Are you willing to fight for someone as hard as you fight for yourself?" That is a beautiful question. And a hard one to answer truthfully.
I'm committed to fighting climate change and believe that requires listening seriously to those whose lives are tied into the energy sector. Whether a fracking ban makes for good or bad politics elides the more important question of how can we make the changes needed to address communal struggles without steamrolling over the lives of those at the margins. I remain without answers.
19
Well written. Learn from Lincoln get what you need first and then what you need later.
He saved the union first before ending slavery because without the former he could not get the latter.
Pa. is probably one of the five or six key states the democrats need to win POTUS next yr. and oust the demagogue Trump, who is a greater threat to our country right now than fracking.
Comprise on it, just like Lincoln did with the borde union slave states. Let them frack in a narrow range, don't ban it and then after the democrats win, slowly educate the public for the need to gradually get rid of it.
15
Fracking is contributing enormous benefits to the US.
Until we levy a carbon tax:
1. There is no market incentive to avoid/remedy the pollution involved in fracking.
2. There is no market incentive to encourage the oil&gas companies to invest in sustainable energy.
3. There is no market incentive to develop alternatives unless/until they are cheaper than oil&gas.
It is reported the US annually spends >$500billion on research. A carbon tax would allow us to encourage some of those researchers to focus on efficiently electrolyzing water and synthesizing (non-fossil) methane.
40 years have transpired since Prez Carter's 'malaise' speech. The threat of GW/CC is now reality. Prior generations met salient threats by focusing to mobilize competent people to develop atomic bombs and means to access the moon, for examples.
Arpa-E, the National Laboratories, the research Universities, and corporate researchers are adequate structure. Better means of 'storage' , and a new generation of power reactors about 48% efficient (vs30% current generation), and HVDC transmissionlines (with Less radiation loss), will near suffice.
A carbon tax can fund and incentivize.
4
So Warren's slogan is "Dream big, fight hard." Well, come November it may well be "Dream big, fight hard, lose hugely."
We need to WIN, not just to dream and fight.
12
Fetterman's estimate of hundreds of thousands of jobs is grossly overstated. Natural gas is in such abundance production has already slowed to a crawl in the past three years . Drilling companies have had major layoffs and are going bankrupt. A severance tax was never imposed on the industry Pa. being the only state to do so. Instead they imposed an "impact tax" drawn up by the drillers themselves. As production dwindles so does revenue raked in by state with the tax. Last year it totaled 198 million dollars is divided through the whole state which is laughable. We have sand and water trucks running 24-7 on rural roads not designed for such traffic. A ban is not necessary but we cannot continue to let the GOP let the industry self regulate itself.
9
Guess it really would be great to be dependent on the Middle East and Russia for our energy needs in the short to medium term. Maybe we can get to $100 plus on oil again with all that US supply taken off the market. We now that the beneficiaries of that inflated price would put the funds to good use bringing peace, prosperity and the green new deal to the world.
10
The Environmental Defense Fund position is increased regulation on fracking especially to capture fugitive gases while building sustainable clean energy sources.  This makes sense.
If an immediate ban was put on fracking hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear overnight with the multiplier effect potentially putting us into a recession as the price of gas at the pump skyrockets to over four dollars per gallon. This would be crushing to our industrial capacity to build a sustainable energy economy.
But none of this will happen because any candidate that goes into Pennsylvania promising to immediately ban fracking will lose (Since Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all must be won to defeat Trump) and then we will be saddled with another four years of deregulating multiple environmental protections only worsening the situation.
Any non-ideological pragmatic perspective can see this obvious truth.
8
Portraying Sanders' plan as throwing these workers out in the cold without support is extremely misleading. On the contrary, ensuring a just transition for workers like these is the core purpose of the green new deal and an essential pillar of Bernie's campaign.
My message to the voters in these counties is to remind them that the lives of future generations depend on their courage right now. Be brave and act as if you loved your children.
7
The Democrats never have plans for employment. Its ban this ban that and figure out the fallout later. They go from their taxpayer funded limousines to offices under armed guard and are disconnected from the real world.
It's great that we have energy independence only the extreme radical Democrats want to pop the balloon and once again be hostage to OPEC and middle east-oil barons.
7
The Dems wanted to get rid of coal.
Then get rid of fracking. They block natural gas anywhere possible.
They want to ban any more petroleum pipelines as well.
Dems want to ban hydro projects, rip out all the dams.
But then the Dems oppose you if you want to build wind and solar. They claim to support wind and solar but when someone actually tries to build something there is endless opposition. They won’t let you build solar in the desert or wind on the hills and offshore. Seriously?!
No new power lines as well.
And don’t you even dream of new nuclear plants.
So what, exactly, will power these electric cars and trains that they want to mandate?
Our supply of magic fairies shedding pixie dust is in short supply.
The Dems do not live in a rational, real world. It’s that simple. For all that you can say that’s bad about the GOP, and there is plenty to be said ... they intend to keep the lights on, homes heated and cars moving. The Dems do not.
And that’s going to be a major problem for the Dem candidate in November.
15
Jobs don't have to mean destroying the environment, but people are short-sighted. They may want to look at some pictures from China, then ask if that is what they really want?
4
Democrats need to separate natural gas from oil and coal. Keep moving toward more green energy, keep educating the public about the dangers of fracking, but don’t promise an outright ban at this stage. Trump is worse for the environment than natural gas.
8
I am a former Member/President of Pittsburgh's Council and caused the first ban on fracking in the world to be enacted on 11/16/2010.
I am not aware of any instance wherein Mayor Peduto has lobbied against the $1.5 Billion state taxpayer subsidized cracker plant being built by Royal Dutch Shell near Pittsburgh.
Mr. Peduto was never among those voicing opposition to this pollution factory that makes plastic feed stock.
Peduto remained silent when his chief political ally, D County Executive Rich Fitzgerald, leased the Pittsburgh International Airport and, a county park for fracking.
On 10/30/19, at local Climate Action Summit, Mr. Peduto spontaneously announced he's s opposed to "any additional petrochemical cracker plants" now being planned for our region. It was the first time he gave voice to this matter. I take his comment to mean he's not opposed to the one being built now.
John Fetterman, who now parrots old talking points from the oil and gas industry, signed a pledge calling for a moratorium on fracking during his primary campaign for US Senate. He ran against Joe Sestak who had long called for the same.
Mr. Fetterman was "put in" that Senate race by PA D leadership in order to bust up the vote for Admiral Joe Sestak, who isn't favored by the powers that be in the D party. Fetterman, wearing a size 13 flip-flop, now thinks fracking is great.
Messrs. Peduto and Fetterman made their Faustian bargains to gain the offices they now occupy.
5
@Douglas Shields
I know this is a minor point to make, but in all fairness to Mayor Peduto, his political power stops at Pittsburgh’s borders. The cracker plant is 25 miles from Pittsburgh, so I can see why his attention to its construction might have been inconsistent.
3
Banning all fossil fuels is an important goal, but it would be economic suicide to ban them all before we have replacements at the scale that they're needed. Fossil fuels account for 80% of our energy needs today and it will take time to change that. Natural gas seems like a good transition fuel until our capacity to generate electricity by solar power and wind turbines is in place.
Natural gas is cleaner than oil and much cleaner than coal. Nuclear power has a bad safety record and there is no plan for what to do with the wastes.
As we work to replace natural gas with more environmental energy sources, we'll have the time to transition people who work in that industry to new and better paying jobs. But, unfortunately, that day is not today.
Just as importantly, if Trump is reelected, he will continue to promote the fossil fuel industry and he destroys our environment.
12
The fracking ban plan will not only affect Pennsylvania but Ohio and other states as well. People will understand more and more through targeted advertising that Democrats plan is not only to destroy the fracking industry but many other industries as well in their zeal to serve the farthest left of their leftist base. Outside of a handful of states expect a sweep by Teump come November.
4
There are numerous reports and articles showing that many of these fracking companies are lately having profitability issues. Why isn’t The Times discussing this, instead of trying to use the controversy as a wedge issue?
9
Fracking is the only thing holding SW PA together economically. Dems ban it at their peril.
4
In less than hour's drive from Monaca, there's a place called Donora that suffered in 1948 a devastating "smog" attack caused by pollution being spewed out of nearby factories.
Nearly half of the entire population suffered several respiratory problems and several people died. For that reason, there was a push for air quality standards and environmental regulations.
It happened in 1948, and I'm assuming the people in Pennsylvania who voted for Donald Trump don't care to remember or just don't care - period.
4
I live in PA, and any candidate who supports fracking will never get my vote.
7
Establishment Dems don’t care about the environment or about our grandchildren. If they cared, they would support the New Green Deal.
Maybe it’s time for a third party
2
Supporting candidates that support a fracking ban doesn't get you a fracking ban. It gets you Trump. Unfortunate, but true.
13
Fracking, private health insurance, financial services and other industries are threatened by Democrats. In NYC foie gras has been banned starting in 2022, a plan that will gravely damage the two farms that supply most of the country and devastate the poor upstate communities they are part of and support. Democrats could care less. Fracking in that generally same area would boost the economy tremendously. Democrats could care less. Changes in the law last year have started to decimate the real estate industry in NYC. Again, Democrats could care less. Democrats care about getting and retaining power and serving leftist causes, when and until they begin to lose power because of their policies, then they revert to them the moment they regain power. Anyone stupid enough to listen to liberals who claim to be moderates will learn soon enough that there is no such thing today as a moderate liberal.
5
This is a mistake for Dem party supporters. Instead, focus regulatory actions on only the most serious environmental offenders like coal. Natural gas is a relatively clean transitional source of energy until cleaner options are viable economically. In the meantime, we need to establish carbon trading markets, tax carbon emissions and transfer resulting revenues to development/use of carbon-free energy sources. A well designed carbon trading marketplace, with appropriate price signals that reflect the actual cost to society of carbon emissions, would address climate change problems more effectively and more efficiently than any government interference/mandate.
6
'a pledge to ban all hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, could jeopardize any presidential candidate’s chances'
Of course, and it should be so. USA achieved unprecedented successes in becoming energy-independent and as far as fossil fuels is in a really good position, natural gas being the top of the top. Apparently, we have to pay as much attention to climate change as possible and do whatever is in our power to control it but that does not and must not include culling the hydrocarbon industry. Candidates proposing such radical and somewhat unhinged plans are and should be at a disadvantage at the very least.
22
@ss
USA also achieved unprecedented success in becoming the world's worst polluter. You are lying to yourself and your kids, relatives, and neighbors when you state that "we have to pay as much attention to climate change as possible and do whatever is in our power to control it" and at the same time promoting fossil fuels. Ugly.
7
@ss
"Unhinged" I'm sick of you people using that buzzword. You want unhinged? Listen to any speech Trump gives.
Yes we need to do something about climate change, but burning more fossil fuels is not going to do it. You can't have it both ways.
6
If only we had stayed on our farms, ground our own wheat and made our little artisan products.
2
After several years experience working to stop a proposed goldmine in Montana I learned one important lesson every environmentalist should respect: Social and economic justice must precede environmental action.
Asking people to give up their jobs or withholding money people need to educate or clothe their children so some environmental objectives can be checked off by people who don't bear the consequences of such actions is not viable or fair.
It is the same situation in the Amazon where poor people cut down trees to do subsistence farming so they can gain electricity and indoor plumbing. Trying to stop them deforesting the Amazon is futile until we can provide them other alternatives that provide the same or better benefits.
If the people on the ground in Pennsylvania say they need to continue, in some cases, fracking, then who thinks that they should be forced to give up their jobs and their self-worth or endure economic hardships?
If Bernie or Elizabeth Warren feel that fracking must stop no matter the costs, then who can blame the people of Pennsylvania for voting against them. Republicans would be overjoyed to run against Bernie or Warren and avoid the debacle they see coming if Biden is nominated.
Losing to Trump again, and allowing the Republican Party, to control the government and regulatory agencies, is definitely not the answer we need.
36
@Dennis Respectully, subsistence farming was primarily responsible for burning trees in the Amazon until the turn of century when cattle and agribusiness interests took precedence. (Subsistence farming continues; but, isn't responsible for the current scale of deforestation.) Mining (both legal and illegal) now play an increasing role in deforestation. Ditto legal and illegal logging. In essence, the issue is not simply -- or even primarily -- one of social justice in the manner you present. I think we are in a very difficult position regarding economy vs. environment. To simplify the narrative in either direction, is very tempting. This is what I see happening a lot. I think the Green New Deal does the same thing, presenting a host of new opportunities in an overly optimistic fashion.
4
@Dennis
Environmental action IS social and economic justice.
12
It's not very well covered in the media, but the United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a long shot because it has ramped up natural gas production while shutting down coal production. We need to aggressively promote renewables, but a short-term fix needs to include natural gas as well as safer more modern nuclear power. It's called harm reduction. Renewables cannot currently meet our energy needs and foolishly attacking good union-paying jobs in the natural gas industry is a sure way to give DJT a chance at Pennsylvania as well as ensuring he keeps Ohio.
Some readers seem to be parroting the famously bad advice of Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell from 2016, promising to win two upscale suburbanites outside Philadelphia for every blue-collar Dem they lose in the west and NE part of the state. The opposite proved true then and could again in 2020. It's not an either/or. Democrats need both Philly and the rest of the state.
22
I live in Washington County, PA. The real reason the County Board of Commissioners flipped Republican is because the Democratic voters failed to show up again.This was an off-year election and county and local offices were mainly on the ballot.I guess the Dems were feeling good after 2018 elections and didn't feel they needed to show up in 2019 for the locals. Big mistake! I think if the same election was held in 2020 the Democrats would maintain a 2 to 1 edge (there are 3 commissioners total) Registered Democratic voters exceed Registered Republicans by some 6K. So get out and vote ALL THE TIME.
9
Non starter here. At some point the NYTimes needs to shift its editorial focus towards what really happens west of the Hudson. Pennsylvania Ohio Indiana and Michigan have been hammered economically for decades. The idea of putting what few thriving industries that exist there out of business is bad politics and worse economics. People are rational about their own welfare. Climate change didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be cured overnight. So putting people out of work for a long term solution is just cruel. As the WSJournal reported this weekend the migration from California to Nevada has picked up because people are making a rational choice to leave a high tax highly regulated state for a less taxing lifestyle. People in the battleground stated don’t have that mobility. So they aren’t going to vote some politician in office to ruin the homes they have to stay in.
29
The difference between California and all the other states that people move to is that California can afford to export hundreds of millionaires every year. Because it creates hundreds of millionaires every year. Nevada, Texas - where ever would love to have this problem.
5
Ban it. Fracking destroys the earth and within 10-15 years the wells are dry.
7
Not true.
But I guess if you keep saying it enough you'll convince yourself it must be true right?
5
The constituency that votes for fracking enthusiasts is also more than likely a Trump voter. Perhaps the Democrats should spend less time with pollsters and more time figuring out how to replace dead manufacturing jobs so fracking is not the only viable job option.
4
They should publicize how fracking has caused over 1,000 earthquakes a year in Oklahoma since fracking began. Even the political shills for big oil have admitted it's the cause. If they can't stand up for their constituents, they should find other employment.
7
Earthquakes are dependent on the geography. The composition of the ground in the area.
I'm ND earthquakes even with all of the fracking for years have been minimal at best. So trying to use one region as an example for all regions is not accurate.
5
The Governor of Pennsylvania is a liar! Texas does not have "hundreds of thousands" of oil and gas industry jobs, and our numbers dwarf Pennsylvania!
The oil and gas industry is hemorrhaging jobs both because of the squeeze on employment from market forces and the fact that the industry is automating its operations to require fewer employees for higher profitability.
It is the responsibility of knowledgeable citizens to correct these factual errors in statements from public officials. It is the fault of Pennsylvania Democrats if they allow this to be framed as a Democrat v Republican or liberal v conservative issue. In North Texas the definition of an environmentalist is a Republican who got frac'ed. Just ask Calvin Tilman or Tim Ruggiero, both of whom now claim to be conservative Independents after being lifelong Republicans!
6
Democrats should be worried. All the policies they put forth harm people and it costs them votes. Too bad they can't figure that out. I like the environment as much as anyone but if there are no people here to enjoy it then it doesn't really matter does it?
7
@RS So, it is a "money or your life" proposition then?
Revenue from PA's from state imposed "impact fees" on unconventional drilling is down 21% this year.
Range Resources, one of the bigger players in PA shale , has laid off people here and closed thier offices in Southport, just south of Pittsburgh.
Chevron is out of the Appalachin shale play.
Steve Schlotterbeck, who led drilling company EQT as it expanded to become the nation’s largest producer of natural gas in 2017, arrived at a petrochemical industry conference in Pittsburgh Friday morning with a blunt message about shale gas drilling and fracking.
“The shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster for any buy-and-hold investor in the shale gas industry with very few limited exceptions,” Schlotterbeck, who left the helm of EQT last year, continued. “In fact, I'm not aware of another case of a disruptive technological change that has done so much harm to the industry that created the change.”
“While hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to hundreds of millions of people, the amount of shareholder value destruction registers in the hundreds of billions of dollars,” he said. “The industry is self-destructive.”
3
@RS And if there are no people left alive because of climate change, then the jobs don’t really matter, do they?
3
Those who dream of a hydrocarbon free world a re nobly ahead of what is possible. Usually they are too young to remember when the United States was beholden to middle eastern dictators who controlled most of the world's oil and gas. History since September 11, 2001 has not been kind to involvement in Middle Eastern entanglements, has it?
Hydraulic Fracturing has given us something we believed impossible- energy independence and lots of jobs.In fact, it was the Oil Patch that began reversing the devastation of the last financial meltdown as fracking liberated cheap oil and gas from stone, producing jobs jobs jobs.
We are seeing the free market for energy cause coal use to plummet as it is being replaced by clean natural gas, a marvelous step forward.
Would it be desirable to generate all of our energy from the sun or wind? Of course. But you cannot reverse 150 years of infrastructure based on hydrocarbons in just ten or fifteen years.
Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg can take us in the right direction, in a realistic manner. Let's grow up and get things done by first removing a tool of the coal industry, the Clown in the White House and his enablers!
17
Joe Biden had already indicated that he would ban fracking immediately. Asked if he would do so despite the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs he without hesitation indicated that he would. Trump is going to destroy Joe or any other of the Democratic candidates who have so foolishly stated policies time and again that would destroy jobs and the economy as a whole.
1
Since when do Democrats care about winning elections? Ban fracking in Pennsylvania then ban it everywhere. Then when energy prices start rising dramatically, tell the voters you know what's best for them.
And while you're at it, make sure the only electable candidate, Biden, isn't at the top of the ticket.
11
The Democrats should be scared to death if the fracking ban, promoted by their party, is put in place. I lived in Harrisburg PA for more than 55 years. The Democrats wreaked destruction on the economy of Pennsylvania. Every industry that PA once had is gone. Steel, apparel, textiles, shoes, brass, watches, knitting, embroidery, furniture, agribusiness including machinery, even Caterpillars factories are gone! It was the Dems who promoted free trade and all its benefits but all PA got was unemployment and higher taxes. Jobs disappeared. Now the Democrats who believe all this new green job nonsense are taking about putting more than 300,000 Pennsylvanians out of work! They expect to do this and win an election too!
Go ahead Dems. End fracking in PA and you'll never win another election again.
14
Can we *please* stop shooting each other in the feet? Republican candidates need only do one thing right to win votes; Democrats evidently have to do everything right. That is a recipe for losing. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the better or the good enough.
3
This is the core statement of the entire article. “At the end of the day, if I don’t have a job, if I don’t have health care..." The problem is too many needs are being capitalized. It has turned most everyone into economic prisoners struggling just to have those basic needs. No morals if you're hungry.
10
Fracking is not as important as health care and and a sane fiscal policy. Democrats should punt the ball on this one and focus on winning on the core issues.
7
I'm anti fracking but a nationwide ban is just dumb politics and poor policy. Let the localities involved decide for themselves. It really is the American way.
7
Nothing like politics to muddy up the idea of being ethical and respectful.
Then again, nothing like good old dirty, environmentally destructive capitalism to utterly destroy ethics and (self-) respect.
1
Didn’t one of the Dem candidates say that the 350,000 could take up coding?
7
What good are jobs if you can't drink the water?
6
@Rick Tornello Thousands of wells drilled and the water is fine!
2
A fracking ban would also be bad for the economy and bad for energy independence, making us slaves to OPEC again. Fortunately, promising it will guarantee the Democrats lose the election, so it won't happen.
7
@Jonathan Katz Slave to Opec.
lol, well, if you really want true energy independence, put up a solar panel and a windmill. The same outfits that drill in OPEC nations drill here too. Do you honestly think that Exxon, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, SA, Halliburton, et. al., would care about you, this country, energy independence. OPEC-schmopeck, the only thing high on their list of things to do is make sure thaey get as high a price they can get from you and I for a gallon of gas.
1
Bernie and Warren will never carry PA. Ever.
7
Lisa and Shane, could you please do a follow-up on this piece and comment on this article:
America’s Radioactive Secret
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-gas-fracking-radioactive-investigation-937389/
If that is indeed true, then everyone, including the workers in PA, need to know about it.
No doubt the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot and lose sight of the prize—to beat Trump.
2
Unless you enjoy earthquakes the same way Oklahoma does, I doubt you'd actually want fracking in your area.
1
Maybe PA has it right in banning the process.
In 2016, the EPA developed an extensive assessment on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and groundwater. The oil and gas lobby exerted maximum pressure on the Obama Administration to produce a report showing there were no significant impacts from hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
Sure enough, EPA's draft study concluded there were no no significant impacts from hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
That draft conclusion was roundly criticized by the public and by EPA's own scientific panel who concluded that there was significant scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can and does significantly impact drinking water resources, by injecting hazardous chemicals into drinking water as part of the process for fracturing the underground, and by pulling up hazardous chemicals as part of the well development process and releasing those chemicals into streams, rivers and back onto the ground where it filters back into groundwater used for drinking water.
The final study was redrafted and it concluded that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources.
Maybe PA has it right in banning the process. And maybe that should be the position of all democratic candidates: support the state in its educated decision that fracking is too risky to do in PA until it uses all available technologies to prevent contamination of the air and our drinking water.
2
Lt. Gov. Fetterman and Mayor Peduto are absolutely correct about voters afraid of losing good-paying fracking jobs. But the number of jobs in my home state of Pennsylvania supported by fracking has been grossly overstated by the gas industry and their proponents. Most reasonable estimates you find would peg it in the 50,000-100,000 range, not the 350,000+ that the industry wants us to believe.
My fellow Pennsylvanians (and voters elsewhere) have fallen hook, line, and sinker on the promise that these jobs are a godsend and will solve all our problems. But the environmental problems created when fracking isn’t seriously regulated will set us back 50+ years in progress for environmental protections. Why can’t we learn that clean air, clean water, and the health and well-being of millions of people are more valuable than less than 100,000 jobs - not even 2% of the 6.2 million jobs - in this state? Why does your job matter more than the health of millions more people?
I think the union leader quoted in this story got it completely backwards; his quote should read: “At the end of the day, if I don’t have clean water and clean air, it doesn’t matter if I have a job, if I have health care, if I can take care of my family.” Because we’ll all be dying prematurely.
100
Are you currently working or without financial worries?
People should not be treated as a numbers or statistic for a political purpose.
Furthermore, you have things backwards.... People come first, since they are the stewards to keep a balance of the environment.
6
@Dave M Do you have references for your job statistics or are these observational? They sound reasonable, if not understated to me. The natural gas industry has brought hundreds of billions of dollars into the state, and fracking has essentially created something this country could only dream about not too long ago: energy independence. Without fracking, the gas will have to come from somewhere else until alternatives can sustainably fill the gap.
This state's environmental regulators are well aware of the risks associated with natural gas drilling and regulate it effectively. The fracking boom has been taking place in Pennsylvania for over 10 years and how is your water quality? Know anyone personally who's had their water supply tainted by fracking or did you just see it in a documentary? The facts are that there have been leaps and bounds made in the regulations and technologies associated with the industry that keep people safe.
If you support a fracking ban due to concerns with the chemicals tainting the drinking water supply, the actual proven cases are extremely rare given the economic benefits and our local leaders are right in questioning a ban.
5
I am also in Pittsburgh in a liberal bubble (close to Google) surrounded by people who work white collar jobs in “meds and eds” and tech. Everyone around me hates fracking, and I’m no fan either, but we do ourselves no favors by pretending that the jobs created by the cracker plant aren’t important to the region and that calling for an immediate ban is a nonstarter for the people whose livelihoods depend on it and whose votes the Democrats need to win the state. The environment will be much worse off if Trump gets re-elected than if we transition slowly enough to get those people into comparable jobs in other industries.
8
Pennsylvania is the perfect microcosm of the whole world and how we deal with climate change versus the economy. The media is filled with documentaries of the problems caused by fracking in PA. Water faucets that spew water which can be lit on fire because of the gas in it. Streams where the wildlife is completely dead. Yet despite the obvious problems caused by fracking and despite the fact that the State next door (NY) has banned it altogether, PA continues to trade off it’s beautiful environment for ill gotten money from fracking. It would be shocking except that the whole world is doing this and all for the same reason: money. But what does money matter in a world where people can no longer live ?
65
"and despite the fact that the State next door (NY) has banned it altogether"
And has been better off for it!
Humanity is an economic metric too. Even covfefeans will learn that—but whether fast enough to change or so late they'll regret it on the deathbed is another story.
9
Lt. Gov. Fetterman and Mayor Peduto are absolutely correct about voters afraid of losing good-paying fracking jobs. But the number of jobs in my home state of Pennsylvania supported by fracking has been grossly overstated by the gas industry and their proponents. Most reasonable estimates you find would peg it in the 50,000-100,000 range, not the 350,000+ that the industry wants us to believe.
My fellow Pennsylvanians (and voters elsewhere) have fallen hook, line, and sinker on the promise that these jobs are a godsend and will solve all our problems. But the environmental problems created when fracking isn’t seriously regulated will set us back 50+ years in progress for environmental protections. Why can’t we learn that clean air, clean water, and the health and well-being of millions of people are more valuable than less than 100,000 jobs - not even 2% of the 6.2 million jobs - in this state? Why does your job matter more than the health of millions more people?
I think the union leader quoted in this story got it completely backwards; his quote should read: “At the end of the day, if I don’t have clean water and clean air, it doesn’t matter if I have a job, if I have health care, if I can take care of my family.” Because we’ll all be dying prematurely.
4
Problems with environmentalists are (a) they don't know science and (b) the world is not a Manichean universe. My family is from western NY, where enhanced oil production from wells a century old built without modern casing techniques was done all the time. The American Institute of Civil Engineers did a comprehensive study which recommended regulatory changes amounting to 5% of the cost of fracking which would eliminate all the negatives of fracking. As one commentator noted, the natural gas from fracking is what has ended coal. More to the point, Trump secured major votes from persons whose main cost was gas for commuting whose costs went from $4 a gallon gas to $2 a gallon gas due to fracking (nobody seriously believes fracking at 5000 feet pollutes water supplies at 300 feet and above). Choose your poison. Capture methane emissions, built safe pipelines such as the Big Inch which won WWII rather than transport by trucks and triple 1 tank cars, or have Trump for another 4 (or will it be 8) years.
34
@terry Beautifully expressed.
4
Perhaps, this could be the best use of Bloomberg and Steyer’s billions in advance of the 2020 Presidential Election: Mike and Tom could offer free relocation packages to the burned out regions of Australia (or California for that matter) for all pro-fracking PA voters.
3
How about a common sense compromise? There are at least four problems with fracking two of which can be solved- 1/ lots of leaking natural gas (methane) which is a much worse GHG than C02 and is allowed into the atmosphere because it's expensive to close the leaks, 2/ fracking pollutes the groundwater with proprietary fracking chemicals, 3/ small earthquakes, 4/ burning natural gas produces some CO2, but 50% to 60% less than coal. How about fixing 1/ and 2/ and see where that leaves us with respect to emissions that are leading to global warming? The idea that people vote for issues like this is doubtful - the key to winning Pa is motivate the young, progressives, women and minorities to vote in numbers never see before.
2
Natural gas is a very clean fuel. To be against gas is kinda a vote for coal.
the electricity coming out of your plug that charges this device you're reading on, it is likely from coal or gas. Your choice.
(obviously smaller chance it is from nuclear or solar or wind, but the point stands, statistically speaking)
27
@Me Too
Natural gas may be a clean fuel, however it's the fracking extraction process that is the environmental concern.
3
@Me Too Its not clean to the ground water...
@R Multiple studies have shown that fracking does not contaminate ground water! The shale-bearing layers are generally several km below the ground water, and the cracks in the rock generated by fracking only extend around 0.1-0.2 km from the bore hole. Contamination of groundwater from drilling is due to failure of the well casing. Since a fracked gas well produces more gas than an untracked well and society wants and needs natural gas, banning fracking would result in more wells being drilled and, therefore, more ground water contamination - the opposite of what you suggest.
4
The Marcellus Shale skips SE PA where Philadelphia and its formerly Republican suburbs have millions of votes. The suburbs have seen their backyards torn up from pipelines from the fracking fields and they are not happy about it.
If I were Sanders or Warren, I would talk about the 67 cases of childhood cancer in 4 counties in SW PA, the 6 cases of rare Ewing sarcoma in one school district in fracking country, and the new article in Rolling Stone about radium-226 with a half life of 1600 years and other radioactive waste being dumped from fracking wastewater sprayed as "brine" on roadways and creeks. Yes, we want PA jobs, but not at the price of contaminating our environment, our children and future generations of Pennsylvanians.
53
This article could use quite a bit more context, lest it lean towards pro-petrochemical propaganda. For instance, while the Shell "cracker" mentioned in the article might promise many jobs, in a world overrun with plastic waste do we really need more? And once government institutes necessary bans on single-use throwaway plastics, as is happening around the world, will these "cracker" jobs even be around?
Another issue is Sanders' and Warren's position on transitioning from fossil fuels. Both have made clear the need for a "just transition" -- where workers forced from fossil fuel jobs are retrained and offered work in other industries. This is a centerpiece of the "Green New Deal." And how likely is it that any fracking ban will be immediate? That's just not how things work.
24
What did PA learn from their support of Donald Trump and his "I'll bring back coal" promises? Nothing? If it's time for fracking to go away, fracking will go away and no president will prevent it.
4
And what happens if it’s not time for fracking to go away?
1
@James Then it won't.
As I’ve said in other forums, leaders lead.
Cowards look which way the wind is blowing.
The working class needs a realistic, forward looking plan for their future, not mirages.
5
Natural-gas fired power plants can be cycled on and off to fill in the gaps in electricity production by solar and wind. Coal and nuclear can't do this. As I recall Amy Klobuchar recognized this situation in the last Democratic debate and described natural gas as a "bridge" fuel to a more renewable future. (Go Amy!)
18
The residents of Pennsylvania already know about hydrofracking related water contamination and low birth weight children. They know about being ripped off by the hydrofracking industry that promised riches in return for leases. They know that they are trying to ship their drilling waste to their neighbors. Guess they don't really care.
6
Gee, Democrats are only now considering the wisdom of their foolish "climate change" job eradication policies?
The shale oil/natural gas industry has created explosive US job growth the past ten years. There are 320,000 such jobs in Pennsylvania, and 400,000 in Ohio and Michigan. On top of that, these jobs infuse capital into their respective communities, and those of the numerous suppliers and subcontractors all over the country.
Joe Biden's remark in a recent debate that these oil/gas workers should instead learn computer coding, is silly pandering to elitists and the college crowd. Democrats will not win these states this November with a job killing message.
10
Frac sands (very quartz-rich sands with well rounded grains) have been quarried in eastern Arizona at least since the early 1950s. Fracking effectiveness has increased enormously since then but the basic process is still the same. A national fracking ban would be a ban on a process that is very old in the oil and gas industry.
The environmental consequences of such a ban are greatly overrated, especially as the industry has been forced to clean up its act over the years. The basic reason is that fracked rock is thousands of feet down, far below well-water depths. And if the rock can hold natural gas and oil for millions of years it likely can hold onto whatever we pump into it for a very long time.
Treatment of salty waste-water associated with oil and gas production is a serious environmental issue. Standard procedure has been to pump it deep underground under very high pressures, which triggers earthquakes. Treating the water rather than pumping it underground would be costly but maybe necessary to placate the neighbors. This is the primary environmental issue.
I don't think Sanders and Warren will help the Democrats by proposing a national fracing ban.
6
Fracking and natural gas production have greatly reduced emissions of CO2 by the US. The primary cause of reduced coal burning for electricity production has been the greatly increased natural gas production. This has resulted in low natural gas prices such that producing electricity via combined cycle gas plants is much cheaper than producing it via coal. While renewables are also increasing rapidly, there is no way that with currently available technology that they could replace natural gas. Hence, a vote to ban fracking is a vote to increase coal burning.
45
@Rob-Chemist Energy should not be cheap. As long as it's cheap, it will be used promiscuously and we will continue down the path to planet we can not inhabit.
14
@Rob-Chemist There is zero truth to the statement, "Fracking and natural gas production have greatly reduced emissions of CO2 by the US." Natural gas may BURN cleaner than coal or oil, but the extraction process has been proven to produce climate changing GHGs that are 70-105 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years and 20-35 times more potent over 100 years.
You cannot burn it until you produce it. Oil and gas production brings to the surface and the atmosphere radioactive isotopes, as well as MANY harmful chemicals and elements that are deeply buried until that hole is punched into the ground!
14
i would like to know more. many people in Ontario county worked hard to get fraking banned there. I think Trump won the county in the end - no surprise. does a national ban sound different from a local ban to swing voters in Pennsylvania ?
3
@ariel Loftus from the Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 21 Issue 2 - April 2017: redacted
There are several environmental issues that must be solved in order to make fracking environmentally acceptable... To achieve these goals, there is a need to find suitable solutions to the following problems: methane gas leaks while fracking and during production, trigger of earthquakes due to fracking, and the disposal of the wastewater after the completion of fracking... Although it is clear that additional research must be performed to fully deal with all the issues, the following strategies have been found to solve or mitigate the problems. To prevent the impact of methane gas leaks, well workers must be properly trained and supervised. And to prevent the methane from contaminating groundwater, groundwater wells must be a minimum of 1 km away from the vertical section of fracking wells. To lessen the intensity and frequency of earthquakes caused by fracking, a regulation should be set in place that prevents disposal of wastewater by groundwater injection wells. In addition, the site should be checked for possible active and inactive faults before the approval of fracking. Finally, fracking companies must be required to withdraw waste fluids from wells and to treat them according to state regulations and reuse or surface disposal as treated water. If all of these suggestions are implemented, fracking may be made much more environmentally viable and safe.
8
@ariel Loftus You don't really need to ban it! In Dallas, Texas, we did NOT ban it - we just enacted a very strong and restrictive drilling ordinance that compelled the industry to look somewhere other than Dallas to drill rather than incur the added production expenses of drilling in our city.
1
@Marc Fractivist - Another vote for NIMBYISM!! Let them peeps in Fort Worth deal with it!
1
The Dem emphasis on political purity and political correctness has always had the effect of shooting themselves in the foot. When Hillary told coal miners that she'd put them on unemployment it pretty much determined who they would vote for. Political purity and political correctness are not qualities that win elections. If Sanders and Warren pledge to prohibit fracking they should not even bother campaigning in the areas that would be economically affected.
31
@Mike F. Hillary Clinton would have been a far greater president than this catastrophe currently occupying the White House, but you're right about her coal miner comment. She was a terrible campaigner. Her message instead -- and one that Democrats need to embrace fully -- should have been something like this: "A fossil-fuel future is unsustainable, and immediate change to renewables is needed. As president, I will make sure new jobs in the renewable energy sector are directed toward areas where people will lose jobs in coal and gas extraction. We simply do not have time to wait and I will introduce a New Deal-like effort to bring us cleanly and safely into the 21st century."
9
Still a pie in the sky argument. It’s completely equivalent to Biden’s stupid comment about coding jobs.
Renewable energy infrastructure production will not migrate to Pennsylvania just because some politician comes up with a scheme.
3
The New Green Deal would bring new jobs. But let’s continue to destroy the planet. Scientists don’t know nothing.
5
A national fracking ban would be the stupidest idea that Dems could promote. Sure, let's cut back on carbon, and tax emissions especially the wellhead flaring, and if you wish, put a ban on E&P on federal lands. but leave the permian and other privately owned basins alone. Otherwise, we get right back int the soup of becoming dependant on foreign sources for petro products, and that is just plain dumb. No argument that we need to migrate more toward renewables, but use carrots not sticks.
Otherwise, Trump and GOP will win in November, and blame for that can start with the Lefties.
66
I resent the notion that the people of the Rust Belt are too stupid to realize the harmful effects of fracking or have a shortsighted desire to destroy the environment in exchange for the economy.
Radical left wing ideas like cleaning up the environment would resonate well in Pittsburgh, they just need the right messenger.
As usual, the Democrats are too concerned with following the direction of the polls instead of changing them.
81
@Nick
This is exactly it! They do the same thing to Appalachian voters. One thing I will say - you absolutely CAN NOT say we are going to do job re-training for those whose jobs are displaced and think you are done. It is a supremely lazy out and the voters don't believe you. This is one where you better come in with concrete, metric-based plans. These are not places where you can promise a lot and just assume voters are coming with you & that's doubly true if you are talking taking their jobs and promising to 'replace' them.
11
@Nick
Agreed, but still the Democrats have to get off this rigid party purity of absolutely banning this, banning that. They have to talk about transition, as quick a transition as possible, but one that will also transition the workers.
8