Hillary Clinton

From ToxicLeaks

The fracking industry is pushing its pawns in the USpresidential race. Fossil fuel big fortunes have donated about $100 million dollars to republican candidates in order to push their agenda to the WhiteHouse. Which the exception of Donald Trump, who doesn't take many donations andis running on his own money, the main republican candidates have receivedsubstantial oil and gas funding, and Ted Cruz, the main contender in therepublican primary, is the one who is getting the most money from these big fortunes,57 % of his funding is coming from them.However the fracking industry is not placing all its poisonous eggs in the samebasket. Hillary Clinton might proclaim that she would turn the US into a “clean energy superpower”, but her Super PACis accepting donations coming from fossil-fuel corporations. And her trackrecord is far from clean in the energy field. Here is why Hillary Clinton wouldactually be a fracking champion if she were elected.

A track record of fracking advocacy throughout the world[edit | edit source]

The first thing that proves that Hillary Clinton is lying whenshe promises to build up “clean energy” in the US is that when she wasSecretary of State, she consistently pushed fracking in foreign countries,backing the most disgusting American fossil fuel companies to help them getjuicy contracts and fat profits. For instance, in February of 2012, Clinton flew over to Sofia,the capital of Bulgaria, to support notorious crime offender Chevron. Thebloated company has signed a contract to exploit shale gas but was facingstrong popular anger and and a parliamentary moratorium on fracking. Soonenough, neighboring Romania started to mobilize against another frackingproject led by Chevron. But Hillary came to the frackers' rescue. She vouchedfor the safety of American fracking technology. She dispatched experts to cometalk to Bulgarian and Romanian media and confirm the lies about how frackingwas a safe process right down their throats. Until opposition lost momentum andthe projects were cleared. Hillary Clinton wasn't so much a Secretary of Stateas a sales rep for fracking and after she has spent those years working hand inhand with the fossil fuel corporations, who could believe that she would resistthe influence they would exert ?

Hillary Clinton courts fracking industry funding for her campaign[edit | edit source]

The links between the Clinton campaign and the frackingindustry are a telling sign. In January, only days before the people of Iowaspoke in the caucus, Clinton was rubbing elbows with bankers and bigcorporations at a fundraiserorganised for her by Franklin Square Capital Partners. And this all happenedat the headquarters of this investment fund that finances numerous fossil fuelcorporations involved in offshore drilling and fracking. Franklin SquareCapital openly fights any regulation on fracking, let alone the ban that shouldbe decided immediately. It warns that "changes to laws andincreased regulation or restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing mayadversely impact" their performance and are leaning on political leadersto prevent such decisions. Franklin Square Capital funds many fracking projectsin Pennsylvania and is clearly contributing to the water pollution disaster that is buildingwithin the State. Health issues linked to fracking has brought two Pennsylvanian families to sue Cabot Oil & Gason the grounds of “reckless disregard” for their safety when they startedfracking in 2008. And yet Hillary Clinton doesn't to have a problem taking themoney of the corporations responsible for these life-wrecking environmentalpollutions. The Guardian reported that 7 % of Clinton's funding comes from fossilfuel billionaires. That may be less than the Republican candidates but it stillrepresents millions of dollars of donations that have one purpose : making surea Clinton presidency will preserve fracking in the US. And Clinton's program isa sign that she is ready to deliver.

A pro-fracking candidacy[edit | edit source]

Although she has sugarcoated it with the development of solar,the bottom line is that Clinton's energy program is a pro-fracking program. The factsheet she released on the campaign websiteopenly celebrates fracking : “Domestically produced natural gas has played acritical role in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants. US CO²emissions in 2015 reached their lowest level in 20 years due in large part to ashift from coal to natural power generation, helping to put the US in a strongnegotiating position at the Paris climate conference.” This is your typicalfossil fuel lobbying bias : stress that fossil fuels like natural gas are muchcleaner than coal, and say nothing about the unsafe fracking methods that areused to get it and the terrible impacts they have on the environment, onseismic activity and on the lives of the peoples that live close by. Thisfactsheet quietly says everything that the Clinton candidacy is scared to voiceout loud, that there will be no ban on fracking and that the fight againstfossil fuel will be strictly limited to the necessary but insufficientreduction of coal generated power. And the same goes for all the otherenvironmental topics.

Clinton grudgingly opposes Keystone XL oil pipeline in a move to counter Sanders[edit | edit source]

Had it not been for Bernie Sanders' candidacy, Hillary Clintonwould still be supporting the Keystone XL oil pipeline. As a Secretary of Statethe reports she had delivered to President Obama on that project were clearly rigged to support it. However, he didn't andClinton's candidacy seemed determined to say nothing substantial on the topic,to be able to quietly approve the project once elected. In the summer of 2015,her energy plan was insidiously vague about her plans : “Clinton’s climate plan is remarkable for what itdoesn’t say, yet,” according toenvironmental activist R.L. Miller. She deplored that the plan entailed “no effort to keepfossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL, Arcticoil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking.” Since then, Clinton has takenheavy fire from her rival, Bernie Sanders, who firmly rejects all corporateattacks on the environment like fracking, offshore and arctic drilling, or theKeystone XL oil pipeline. After having lost the New Hampshire primary, Clintondid the only thing she could do, steal half of heropponent's environmental platform and she finally came out against the Keystone XL oilpipeline and ocean fracking. Is this good news for the environment ? Notreally. Because Hillary Clinton's campaign has gained momentum again and thetime for environmental concessions is therefore over. All those who hope shemight continue in her stride and announce a ban on fracking are dreaming. Moreimportantly, Clinton remains a fossil fuel champion. She might have painted herprogram greenish to kill the Sanders campaign, but when that is over and shefaces a Republican candidacy, she will rely more than ever on corporatefunding, and that's when she'll start making concessions to fossil fuelcorporations again.

The HillaryClinton campaign is proof that fossil fuel funding is corrupting the wholepolitical spectrum in the US, with the exception of Bernie Sanders and hispolitical revolution. Clinton has a track record of working with Big Oil andher program shows that she is determined to preserve fracking in the US,despite the disastrous social and environmental impacts it is causing.