• memfree@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Honestly, I would rather she flip on this issue than have her replace Lina Khan as the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission.

    Why is Harris flipping? To pick up swing voters. Senator Fetterman (D-PA) did the same thing to get elected in that important swing state. I remember seeing his debate against a carpetbagging Dr. Oz and despite being barely coherent after his stroke, Fetterman made the point repeatedly that he supported fracking. And he won.

    As of 2021, the last time a major poll was conducted, not only did a majority of Pennsylvanians want to see more regulation of the fracking industry, but a majority actually wanted to “end” fracking in the state (25 percent wanted it done “as soon as possible,” and 30 percent favored a gradual transition).

    So why is Harris reversing her position on fracking if Pennsylvanians want it gone? One reason may be that many of the voters who oppose fracking (for example: the 79 percent of Democrats who want fracking to end) will vote for her either way. The people the party is anxious about winning, on the other hand, might be the ones who’d be turned off by a proposed ban. For example, 43 percent of independents in the 2021 poll said fracking should not end or be phased out.

    I think there’s more to it than that. Republicans are going to run ads saying she’s against it so her team will want to say those ads are lies, so they can’t be trusted on anything. That is: flipping position on one issue lets her discount multi-vector attacks on many things.

    More than that, she’s better be using this as a way to get money for her campaign. It would almost be a shame if she didn’t at least get support from Big Oil for flipping.

    Why would this matter less than the FTC chair? Because Harris is getting monied pressure to replace Khan and Khan is doing an amazing job and getting actual change whereas it is unlikely that an anti-fracking stance would change anything. Given the current members of Congress, they are not going to ban or limit fracking right now, so Harris isn’t going to get that sort of law through. More importantly, the Supreme Court royally screwed us over last month by reversing the Chevron Doctrine so the EPA is hamstrung until/unless Chevron is restored OR congress writes new protection laws – and that’s not going to happen with this Congress, either. That means any Executive order on cleaning up fracking won’t work because the enforcement agencies are now toothless.

    It sucks, but I understand the decision.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I find myself very torn on this issue. On one hand, fracking should be banned due to the extensive domestic and global harm it causes. On the other hand, fracking should not be banned right now, due to the economic pressure it applies to Russian natural gas exports, lowering the price and reducing the income they have access to for their warfighting.

    Russia has some of the largest NG reserves in the world, and its a key sector of their economy. They will not be dissuaded from encouraging climate change any time soon and need to be soundly defeated in a hot war if any reform of their economic system is ever going to be seriously pursued. This is our only realistic opportunity to accomplish this, right now.

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Your logic makes sense, and I’m sure most people in power agree with you, but this still seems like a situational excuse to me. There will always be a reason not to ditch dangerous extraction methods. Right now it may be Russia, next time maybe it’s a Gulf state. While it might matter to this moment’s geopolitical situation, the safety, health, and longevity of the planet and all its inhabitants are significantly more important than our ability to temporarily harm Russia’s economy. I’m also not convinced this is causing as much pain to Russia as we might like. They always seem to have a way of avoiding the worst of our economic warfare.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        True. But reforming the Russian economy is a necessary pre-requisite to stopping climate change, something very seldom discussed because of how frankly near-impossible it is. This might be our only opportunity.

        They’re one of the few countries that might actually benefit significantly from climate change, due to opening arctic seaways and ports, and the massive disruptions it would cause to all their rivals. Their government style makes the migrations it would cause a minimal risk for them, and suffering and death does not seem to concern them much.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          If reform is infeasible, there are other ways to lessen the impact of Russian exports. All are brutal and will hurt ordinary Russian people. But if necessary for the survival of humankind, someone will attempt them.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Russia exports its gas via pipelines. Most of them go to Europe. At least for the most part. Russias LNG exports are pretty small and sanctions prevent them from exporting more. The Russians also cut most pipeline gas sales to the EU. That has halved Russias gas exports abroad. They only really sell to China and Turkey, as well as the bit of LNG they have and the bit of EU sales they did not cut. All of that leads to Gazprom the only company exporting Russian gas loosing money.

      Oil is more difficult as it is easier to transport, but we recently saw a massive decline in shipments to India. India is Russias biggest oil client, so a decline is horrible for Russia. Furthermore Russia is stopping exports of refined products due to refineries in Russia being hit.

      Generally speaking the EU is doing just fine in terms of energy security. Higher gas prices increase the speed to transition away from it and that removes Russias biggest potential market. China does not want a new gas pipeline to Russia and is therefore unable to replace Europe as a cutomer. Especially with China trying to move into a post carbon economy themself. As for oil the better way is for the US to not consume as much.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It doesn’t really matter who Russia sells their hydrocarbons to, that’s all subject to change over time. They even already have new pipelines in the works. What matters is the price they can get for selling it to whoever wants to buy some. This price is something we can influence. We can’t really halt their exports, but we can reduce their profit margins.