National

More Prominent Democrats Rebuke “Keep-It-In-The-Ground” Goals as “Not Possible”

This week, POLITICO hosted a panel discussion at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which was famously interrupted by “Keep-It-In-The-Ground” (KIITG) activists who were angry that just about every prominent Democrat on the stage supports fracking.

One of them was Iowa Congressman Dave Loebsack who had this to say about KIITG’s goals:

We can’t just flip a switch and say ‘no more fossil fuels, now it’s all renewables.’ That’s not practical, it’s not possible.”

Congressman Loebsack’s comments echo those of Obama Science Advisor John Holdren who recently said, “The notion that we’re going to keep it all in the ground is unrealistic.” They are also right in line with Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, who called KIITG activists “completely impractical.”

Another voice of reason at the Politico event was Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell who was office while the Marcellus shale revolution was just taking off. The governor was quick to point out that fracking and natural gas are not only beneficial, but also necessary. As Gov. Rendell said,

“But if you regulate it [fracking] well, it can be a valuable source of the economy and good for the environment.”

As the former governor pointed out, the switch to natural gas produced through fracking for energy generation has improved air emissions significantly in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, thanks to the increased use of natural gas, U.S. carbon dioxiode (CO2) emissions from power generation were the lowest in 27 years in 2015. Gov. Rendell elaborated on this point, stating:

“If we can’t frack, we are not going to have natural gas as a source for electricity. So what the alternative?”

He continued,

“And she [the anti-fracking protestor] talked about a bridge. Well, burning natural gas is 40-50 percent less pollutant…so tell me, how is that bad for the environment?”

In the same breath, former Gov. Rendell also mentioned the ignorance associated with those who are completely anti-fracking, such as activists in the KITTG movement. As he said,

“What’s amazing to me about the anti-fracking people – I’d like to have a conversation with them, but you can’t have a conversation with them.”

He continued, saying that their view of the United States running completely on renewable energy is not possible, so opposing fracking makes no sense. As he mentioned:

“We don’t live in an idealistic world, unless – I’ll make a deal with all the anti-fracking marchers, they can only have electricity 2 hours a day.”

We’re noticing a recurring theme from Democrats: “Keep-It-In-The-Ground” is so far on the fringe, it’s “completely impractical.”

1 Comment
  • Bill Butterworth
    Posted at 04:01h, 01 August Reply

    The human race is growing in numbers. Every single extra human needs energy from one source or another. Of course we need sustainable, renewable energy. We do not have enough and we need to urgently develop such sources. That will take time. While se are dong that, which needs funding, we need energy and the hydrocarbons we have do have problems.
    Shale gas does produce the greenhouse gas, Carbon dioxide, when it is used as a fuel but it is an almost clean burn. Petrol, is much dirtier, diesel even more so, coal is bad and Lignite (of which Germany and China in particular burn enormous quantities) is really filthy.
    So, using shale gas in our cars, trucks and buses in our cities will reduce asthma, heart disease and cancer in city workers. Read that again, shale gas as a fuel will reduce the incidence of cancer.
    And shale gas could, and should, produce the funding to develop sustainable and renewable energy sources.
    Search “Survival by Bill Butterworth Amazon” and http://www.safeshale.co.uk and http://www.landresearchonline.com

Post A Comment