H. A. Goodman Columnist
published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon,
The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com
Nothing illustrates the
primary difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton better than the
following Huffington Post article by Brad Johnson titled On Eve of Caucuses, Clinton
Rakes in Fracking Cash:
Less than a week before the
Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton attended a gala fundraiser in Philadelphia at
the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital Partners, a major investor in the
fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking. The controversial
fracking industry is particularly powerful in Pennsylvania, which will host the
Democratic National Convention this July.
Clinton has avoided taking any
clear stand on fracking...
The pro-Clinton Super PAC
Correct the Record, run by David Brock, touts Clinton's aggressive pro-fracking
record.
Clinton's brazen acceptance of
funding from interests promoting fracking, and all the hazards that result from
fracking, speaks volumes. From an environmentalist's perspective, this is the
equivalent of Hillary Clinton's prison lobbyist donors.
Bernie Sanders never accepted
money from corporations involved in fracking, and certainly never accepted
money from prison lobbyists. His challenger, on the other hand, is linked to oil and gas contributions that span across the globe.
According to Reuters, "the Wall Street Journal reported that the
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative
have accepted large donations from major energy companies Exxon Mobil and
Chevron." Clinton's foundations also accepted money from an office of the
Canadian government linked to promoting Keystone XL.
For some reason, many
Democrats overlook the fact that Clinton promises to uphold a progressive value
system, while simultaneously accepting donations from corporations and
governments working to undermine these principles.
When evaluating a future
president, voters must look towards the candidate's value system. Nothing
exemplifies the value system possessed by Bernie Sanders better than his desire
to ban fracking. His plan to save America from the scourge of fracking is
illustrated in a Washington Post piece titled Bernie Sanders puts forward ambitious plan to
combat climate change:
Among other things, Sanders
would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling, ban fracking for
natural gas, stop exports of liquefied natural gas and crude oil and put a
moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States.
Sanders also proposes hefty
investments in several clean energy sources, including solar. He seeks to
increase fuel economy standards for automobiles, build electric vehicle
charging stations, invest in a "state-of-the-art" rail system and
make U.S. cities more walkable.
If this sounds like a dream
candidate, that's because Sanders is a once in a lifetime politician. You won't
find many leading political figures who openly advocate that America bans
fracking.
In contrast, his challenger
for the Democratic nomination once "sold" the concept of fracking to
other countries. Clinton's affinity for this dangerous form of fossil fuel
extraction is highlighted in a Mother Jones piece titled How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold
Fracking to the World:
Clinton urged Bulgarian
officials to give fracking another chance...
Under her leadership, the
State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around
the globe -- part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global
energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use
their energy resources as a cudgel.
But environmental groups fear
that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination
and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant
environmental regulation.
If this sounds like the
antithesis of Bernie Sanders, that's because Hillary Clinton is the antithesis
of Sanders on fracking, and many other issues. Furthermore, exporting the
dangers of fracking around the globe undermines the efforts of environmental
groups in those regions.
Another major difference
between Clinton and Sanders on this topic is evaluated in a brilliant piece by Michael Sainato in The Huffington Post titled Hillary
Clinton Touted Fracking Across the Globe, and Only Bernie Sanders Can Be
Trusted to Save Us From It:
When it comes to the
environment, Senator Bernie Sanders has a much more extensive, honest, and
clear record than Hillary Clinton. Any voter who has a penchant for
environmentalism in any capacity should take these stark contrasts into
consideration when debating between supporting Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders.
In 2016, the choice is clear
for voters longing to fix structural issues, not just listen to lofty rhetoric
about tackling climate change. Because of fracking, Oklahoma experiences more earthquakes than anywhere else in the
world. Newsweek writes that Fracking Wells Tainting Drinking
Water in Texas and Pennsylvania, Study Finds. As for flammable water, Time has
a video titled Flaming Faucets: When Fracking Goes Wrong.
Ultimately, the difference
between Bernie Sanders and Clinton involves a grandiose difference in urgency
between both candidates. Sanders wants to transition the U.S. from a perpetual
consumer of fossil fuels, into an innovator in cleaner energy. His goal is to
ban fracking; end of story.
With Hillary Clinton, not only
will she accept money from oil, gas, and coal companies (unlike Sanders), but Clinton
will accept money from virtually any corporation. The money trail speaks
volumes, especially when Mother Jones writes that one environmental activist told Clinton,
"I'm disappointed about the answer you gave to climate change... I'm
wondering if your answer... is due to contributions from the fossil fuel
industry to your campaign."
Finally, don't take the word
of a writer who believes Bernie Sanders is a once in a lifetime candidate.
Experts in the field of environmental protection and the dangers of fracking
have highlighted the problems with Hillary Clinton's climate plan. A POLITICO article titled The holes in Hillary's climate
plan explains why Clinton's fracking dollars might lead to sub-par record on
climate change as president:
She has avoided taking stands
on Keystone XL, fracking, oil exports and Arctic offshore drilling...
"Clinton's climate plan
is remarkable for what it doesn't say, yet," California-based
environmental activist R.L. Miller, who founded the Climate Hawks Vote PAC,
said in a statement. Specifically, she added, Clinton offered "no effort
to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL,
Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking."
Even 350.org co-founder Bill
McKibben, who aimed a torrent of anti-Keystone activism at Clinton's State
Department and warned her in June that "many serious environmentalists
currently distrust you," said her first crack at a climate plan got
"half the way there."
"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 [Wyoming's] Powder River basin and the
Keystone XL pipeline," he added in a statement.
After Clinton said Monday that
she couldn't speak on Keystone "because I had a leading role in" the
pipeline's administration review, McKibben said by email that her rationale was
"silly" because "she's rightly full of insights about Iran,
about Benghazi, about Korea, about a thousand other ongoing issues the State
[Department] processes daily."
It's not difficult to see when
a politician is uncomfortable addressing certain topics, and from Keystone XL
to fracking, Clinton seems beholden to the interests that have helped fund her
campaign. In contrast, Bernie Sanders has no problem whatsoever taking a bold,
honest, and straightforward stance on these issues.
In 2016, America faces the
prospect of Donald Trump (whose golf courses are environmental disasters) and Hillary Clinton upholding the
status quo, or Bernie Sanders making climate change a central focus of his
economic and energy policy. There's only one choice. If voters are serious
about fixing the structural dilemmas pertaining to why corporate interests are
so influential in promoting devastating hazards like fracking, they'll choose
Sanders. While Clinton and Trump refuse to ban fracking outright, only Bernie Sanders
is willing to ban fracking completely as president. I explain why Bernie
Sanders is the only choice for Democrats on Tim Black TV, with my friend and fellow Bernie Sanders
supporter Tim Black.
Follow H. A. Goodman on
Twitter:
No comments:
Post a Comment