
Bernie Sanders is now calling for a nationwide ban on fracking - neurobuddha
http://inhabitat.com/bernie-sanders-is-now-calling-for-a-nationwide-ban-on-fracking/
======
mc32
Sometimes I think Sanders is just the anti-Trump. And while I think Trump
likely would normalize if elected, my feeling is Sanders has more real
intention behind his rhetoric.

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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> 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...](http://www.nrel.gov/gis/pdfs/windsmodel4pub1-1-9base200904enh.pdf)
(warning: PDF)

US Solar Potential: [http://energy.gov/maps/solar-energy-
potential](http://energy.gov/maps/solar-energy-potential)

~~~
knodi123
> the problem is we shouldn't be burning natural gas

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.

~~~
zxcvcxz
But we don't need to frack to obtain natural gas. It seems to me the only
reason to frack is because we plan to use every bit of easily obtainable
natural gas, which probably isn't good for the environment.

~~~
knodi123
> because we plan to use every bit of easily obtainable natural gas, which
> probably isn't good for the environment

It isn't _good_ for the environment, but it's _better_ for the environment
than any other non-renewable resource.

It's not that we shouldn't try to reduce dependence on natural gas, or reduce
waste, or reduce consumption- it's that anybody picking on natural gas
specifically, would produce far better results for the environment by focusing
their efforts on coal or oil.

------
sevensor
Here in PA, the Marcellus shale is pretty well fracked already. A ban would do
precious little to stop shale gas extraction here, since the fracking
operations have mostly moved on. Time and money would be much better spent
ensuring that transportation and storage operations are conducted safely.

------
e0m
I've seen plenty of articles about the potential negative impacts of fracking,
but does anyone have a well-written piece on domestic fracking's upsides?
Cheap gas as economic stimulus and a lessening dependence on foreign oil seem
like they hold some sway on the issue.

~~~
JBReefer
[http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-
now/posts/2015/03/e...](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-
now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking) is a good start, but the
biggest benefits come from being less reliant on petrostates like Saudi
Arabia, Venezula and Russia, as well as causing economic pressure which
reduces fundamentalism in the bellicose petrostates.

~~~
r00fus
Instead, it will create the petrostates in our own country. We still have to
buy the end result from energy companies one way or another.

The only ones who profit from fracking directly are the energy companies who
sell into the commoditized market.

------
b0t
I left reddit to come to HN to get away from constant Bernie/Trump posts. Oh
well.

------
pnut
This is silly! Absolutism is not tenable.

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.

~~~
zxcvcxz
>it also has effectively made the US energy independent.

Source?

~~~
pnut
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812)

------
djschnei
The president doesn't legislate. This means nothing.

------
tryitnow
I like Sanders, but I can't agree with this. How will he deal with the
following: 1) less natural gas could mean more coal => worse carbon emissions
2) this would almost certainly lead to increases in energy prices. These would
hit the poor the hardest. 3) So if the US isn't producing then who would be?
This is great news for the Saudis, Putin and others.

The above three points are not my original ideas. They were explained in a NYT
article a day or two ago.

~~~
zxcvcxz
So kill the earth as long as it helps America in the short-term and it's the
more affordable option?

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.

------
misterbishop
Na-Na Naaaa-Na Na-Na Naaaa-Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye Fracking.

