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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.
This is silly! Absolutism is not tenable.<p>Fracking may be bad for the environment in absolute terms, but it also has effectively made the US energy independent.<p>Geopolitically, this is a brain dead position to take.
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.<p>The above three points are not my original ideas. They were explained in a NYT article a day or two ago.