Democrats block pro-fracking bill in the Senate
Democrats block pro-fracking bill in the Senate
Republicans were looking to highlight Vice President Kamala Harris’ policy change on the issue.
You're viewing a single thread.
I still have no idea how Fracking became something that Dems supported. Fracking is like taking a shit in your ground water.
Someone else pointed out that they blocked the fracking bill.
However, this is a tough topic for Dems, and it's one of the reasons the Teamsters haven't endorsed them; one of the reasons is because industries like fracking provides well-paying blue-collar jobs.
Remember, back in 2016, when Hillary said at a rally that if she was elected they were going to shut down the coal industry? That was a "they said the quiet part out loud" moment for blue-collar industry, and while it's too much blame to lay on Hillary, it really did drive another nail in the coffin of blue-collar support for Democrats, which they're still struggling to recover.
Democrats have two conflicting goals: support blue collar jobs, and stop environmental destruction. Actions like this benefit the environment, but cost them votes and the support of Unions.
It's a catch-22. Biden did a fantastic thing showing up at that picket line, but there's a long way to go to recover those blue-collar votes.
industries like fracking provides well-paying blue-collar jobs.
I hate this so much. Can I create a business that employs people to add small amounts of cyanide to a city's water supply and when they try to shut me down claim they're taking jobs away from Americans?
You're not wrong, but the oil and gas industry, and generations of families have made livings on it, and our resulting current world status and wealth is largely founded upon it.
It's a problem; you can hate the problem, but ignoring it isn't a solution, and it's cost Democrats elections. This isn't a handful of Klansmen; it's an entire industry. The supply chain employs nearly 10M people in the US. Telling then you fuck off, relocate, and find different jobs doesn't win any votes.
Democrats could minimize these issues if they communicated better. If they just said "fracking destroys our communities and hurts americans. We are going to invest in green energy and training fracking workers to transition to different industries".
It's like how they aren't pointing out that undocumented migrants are regular tax paying people, and deporting them would be horrible. Instead of doing that they've moved further to the right and now are campaigning about how Trump blocked their awful border bill.
Democrats only have themselves to blame. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
You'd be amazed at how resistant most people are to anything that feels unfamiliar, even if it's good for them. Coal and oil jobs are familiar, green jobs are not.
It should be as simple as you're suggesting, but sadly it isn't.
I don't buy it. It feels like these vague arguments are used against any progressive policy. "We can't tax the rich cause then they'll leave the country!"
If fossil fuel workers are so stubborn that they will refuse to vote for a party that wants to transition them into green energy jobs then their votes aren't worth it. If the democratic party allows the workers of a single industry to determine their climate policy then they are revealing themselves to be spineless and useless politicians.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The reality is that dismantling an industry so enmeshed in our economy, both nationally and locally, is HARD. People WILL be negatively impacted and it would be stupid to ignore that. Democrats have to walk a very thin tightrope to not alienate people, which is what will happen if we go as hard as we should
I think the media doesn't help, and people don't talk about how bad climate change is. Everyone buries their head in the sand
That's what they said about coal and the messaging didn't help. People associated with the coal industry still saw it as an attack against them and their way of life.
Fuck those people then. The democrats should not allow a small portion of the population to dictate something as important as climate policy.
The only way this argument makes any sense is if we assume the democrats are spineless and useless. Which they are, but still.
Democrats need votes if they're going to accomplish anything, so they have to compromise. I agree that it's not great and I wish that we had a progressive party with any power to it.
Please don't try, that's all I'm saying
Um, the Democrats stopped a pro fracking bill…
I assume they’re referring to Harris saying that, as president, she would not ban fracking and taking that to mean that she supports it.
However, not banning something doesn’t necessarily mean you actually support it. I would think that being in support of fracking means you’d be looking to encourage/expand it. Which she hasn’t done to my knowledge.
Yeah, I suppose that could be it. Also, I don’t think that people realize that if a major party candidate called for a ban on fracking with the on-going war in Ukraine still an issue, it would send energy prices across the world skyrocketing. One of the whole reasons we’ve been ramping up production in the US is to stabilize oil prices.
Yet another reason it would be really nice if Republicans quit playing games about aid and support for Ukraine. The quicker Russia withdraws troops, the quicker we can step away from fracking.
Yes but they have been supporting it on the campaign trail.
No, Harris said she wouldn’t ban it - that’s not the same. Part of the reason we’ve ramped up production in the US is to stabilize global energy prices that were wildly climbing after Russia invaded Ukraine. If we hadn’t, there would be much broader global pressure on Ukraine to capitulate and cede part of its territory to Russia.
If she’d said in the debate that she’d support banning fracking, it would have sent global oil prices spiraling upwards just on the threat of it.
We get Putin out of Ukraine, we can start stepping away from fracking. But a permanent ban is unlikely for just this reason we find ourselves in now - geopolitical events may mean we have to do it again in an emergency. Without such an emergency there’s still a lot we can do to stop it outside extreme situations.