112

Kamala Harris reverses earlier anti-fracking stance and no longer supports a ban (fortune.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/Ngr8G

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Atom@lemmy.world 72 points 2 months ago

I'm all for banning it. But let's take an honest look at the election predictions and notice PA will almost certainly be the deciding state in November. Eastern PA is solid blue, so the election effectively comes down to Western PA, where fracking is a single issue vote.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. We have a two party system and that's not going away in 2 months. She can say she'll ban it and Trump wins PA, or she can reverse course, opt for greater regulation, and have a chance to be the most climate forward president in US history.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 23 points 2 months ago

Sssshhh

We’re doin like 5 different irrational reasons every single day why PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT FELLOW LEFT WING VOTERS

It doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it just needs to be a variety of stuff and literally never fuckin stop

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 months ago

Threat of Trump is unique. This isn’t the usual “vote for us or else.” I want progressive gains, but she’s got my vote.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Pretty much exactly, yeah.

OP occasionally posts reasonable articles, but I admit I feel compelled to call out bullshit like this on their more agitprop-oriented posts.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

OP tends to post naive agitprop takes on, like, literally anything Harris says or does, ignoring the realpolitik implications (which include, you know, losing to Trump because big corp and AIPAC go spooked by some campaign statement).

Just check the post history. They also tend to spam reposts in a bunch of communities, which I find odd, because karma farming is very much not a thing in the fediverse.

Edit: lol I see you, r2o

[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 4 points 2 months ago

I read this stuff but I’m never inclined to vote for that idiot because of it, and if I share or talk about things like this, it’s due to cautious optimism and not trusting politicians. It’s good to keep things in check and not get swept up in the same old party Obama sold us. If this kind of thing is enough to swing someone to vote for POS Trump, they were probably going that way regardless.

It should also be noted that the wealthy benefit from fascism and right-wing bullshit, so of course Fortune would post an article like this.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 2 months ago

Haven’t you read his own self report of his motivation? He cares so much about left wing causes that he’s decided to accomplish them by making a part time job out of attacking the most left wing person (whoever that might be) in this election for a variety of made up reasons.

It’s a hugely effective strategy. MLK did the exact same thing; he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time, and presto! It pushed them to the left. That’s how we got the voting rights act and all this other good stuff.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I understand the logic, and it’s actually fairly shrewd. But in practice here, it’s looking to me a lot like just shitting on a candidate and sapping enthusiasm on topics that she does not currently have agency to act on. And then there’s the electoral pragmatism angle, in the context of an election where the other party has been subsumed by overt fascists and Nationalist Christians.

I don’t mean to demean or diminish the struggle of Palestinians, or any number of other extremely important causes. But failing to win this election is going to destroy so, so much. So my argument is that this is a “stop the fascists at all costs” situation, and confusing and snarling the issues like this is counterproductive. There’s a time and a place for that strategy, and I just don’t think this is the appropriate time.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

There’s a time and a place for that strategy, and I just don’t think this is the appropriate time.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 2 months ago

Agreed

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time

Just checking in: is THIS article made up hostile nonsense? Or are you vaguely referring to some other thing

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 2 months ago

Correct.

If you want to evaluate the candidates on their energy policies (for some fuckin reason, as if it is necessary to have a comparison between these two on the merits), you can check into what each of them wants to do, and how much sense it makes.

If you want to pressure the Democrats to be more climate friendly in their policies, probably the best way is just to educate voters about what a vital issue it is (change the calculus of what positions will win or lose them elections), or maybe make the case to the Democrats that support for the fossil fuel industry isn’t as vital as it used to be (e.g. point to candidates in PA who were openly hostile to the industry who still got elected e.g. Fetterman)

Picking out one random wedge issue, and covering it in terms of whether Harris “flip flopped” between her support for the Green New Deal several years ago which included this one provision and now at this point not really saying much about it, as if that is gonna make anyone better informed about what is going on, makes no sense. It’s just creating a conflict between two random single statements at the very fringes of what a coherent energy / climate policy would even be. But it makes perfect sense if you’re casting about for some random cherry picked thing to say about her that sounds bad (and in a very particular way that will lose her support from both fossil fuel people and climate people, because each of them can focus on one time frame of her position which is alarming to them that they disagree with.)

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

OK, so your complaint isn't about the factual nature of the reporting (Harris's policy stance hasn't been misrepresented as far as I can tell) your complaint is how it's being contextualized and presented.

So it's not "made up" hostile nonsense, it's maybe just simply "hostile nonsense" from your perspective.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean, Obama really did wear a tan suit. He really did ask for Dijon mustard. Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “ginned up” instead of “made up,” because generally speaking they are more or less factual yes.

Like I say, someone from the left who’s all upset about Obama’s drone strikes and saying hey WTF we need better than this, that 100% makes sense to me. But if someone is attacking Obama about the tan suit, and then when they’re called out they say well what about the drone strikes, I’m just trying to push him to the left, that seems dishonest to me. Doesn’t that accusation make sense?

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Idk, I think fracking is a much bigger deal than the tan-suit panic but who knows, maybe that's how chuds felt about Obama's fashion choices.

edit: just as an aside, seeing as how this is a climate community, i would have thought Harris's energy policy would be very relevant to discussion and not in any way irrelevant.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Oh, fracking is a huge deal. As is the rest of energy policy, as is the half a billion tons per year CO2e that Biden’s policies have removed from our emissions.

I was referring to the idea of removing any level of qualified analysis from the evaluation of Harris’s real policies proposed or otherwise, and replacing it with “she made THIS one-off comment several years ago about something that is purely a performative aspect of any policy because the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway, and then that contradicts this OTHER one-off comment she made just recently about something SHE’S A FUCKIN FLIP FLOPPER” horse race disingenuous bullshit

Hope this helps

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

You can't simply analyze your way out of the extremely unhealthy/unsustainable/environmentally damaging practice that is fracking by pointing to CO^2^ reduction policies. People aren't objecting to fracking because of its CO^2^ emissions (not just, anyway), it's a problem because it poisons aquifers and causes untold amounts of harm to subterranean and geological systems. Saying 'but look at all the other good stuff they're doing for CO^2^ reduction!' is only compelling if CO^2^ was the primary concern of the practice (it isn't).

And anyway, you could have that conversation without constantly complaining about certain factual statements not aligning to your prejudiced electoral motivations and without coming into every conversation accusing people you disagree with of misrepresenting reality

the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway

lmao oh well fuck me then, guess we can't expect any progress from our politicians

Why do I always find you in the comments trying to nuance your way out of criticizing democratic positions.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 2 months ago

So then I said, Herr Thälmann, how important is nuance, in analyzing a political situation? How important is compromise with people even who don’t see eye to eye with you perfectly, politically?

And he said, ZERO. Just push for what you want. If it’s not perfect, it’s garbage; try to oppose it. Compromise is the obstacle to progress.

And I said wait. How can I hear you? I thought you died. In Buchenwald.

And from that point on, I heard nothing. Only silence.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

"If you have nothing good to say about my party then you must be seeking to overthrow it."

'What could go wrong with compromising with fascists' he wonders

[-] skyfaller@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How local do we have to get? Can the opinions of swing voters in like one county in PA hold the rest of the world hostage?

Polls indicate the majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking: https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/poll-majority-of-pa-residents-want-fracking-to-end/

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania had about 4,900 oil and gas extraction jobs in December of 2019. (For a frame of reference, there are more than 148,000 employed registered nurses in Pennsylvania. In January, there were 6.2 million jobs in Pennsylvania.)" https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pittsburgh-area-republican-candidate-sean-parnell-inflated-fracking-job-figures-by-a-lot-17001969

It's a very dedicated interest group with a lot of money behind it, but fossil fuels simply don't employ that many people, even in PA. It seems like an inadequate excuse for taking positions friendly to the fossil fuel corporations that are destroying our biosphere, both on the local scale and the global scale. Don't blame Pennsylvania for Harris reversing her position on fracking.

[-] Freefall@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We have a factory up the road that is the lifeblood of the town it is in (taxes and community support, but also just families supported). I could quote the number of people that work there (around 400 I think), but that town of 10k people would would vanish without it. The population would turn on someone promising to shut down the factory that only employs 400.

Multiply that scenario by...every rural town...and you get conciquencual numbers.

[-] skyfaller@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 months ago

Also, while PA is undoubtedly a vital battleground, I want to mention that ElectoralVote currently has the tipping point state for both presidential campaigns as North Carolina: https://electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Tipping_point/Aug28.html

In other words, if Harris carries PA there's a decent chance she will also take NC by a slightly larger margin, and will already have secured the presidency without PA's electoral votes.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

That’s because the President can’t ban it if they wanted to. From this very article:

While there are several ways Harris, if elected president, could halt fracking on federal lands using executive power, she wouldn’t be able to unilaterally ban it on private land. Under a 2005 law, the Environmental Protection Agency has almost no regulatory power over fracking. Changing that would require an act of Congress.

[-] gila@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

There's little reason to change your stance then, other than to virtue-signal to the right

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I prefer to think of it as vice-signalling

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024

112 points (87.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5183 readers

768 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net