Not banning something doesn’t sound like “doubling down”. Doubling down would be pushing for increases, or asking for tax incentives to encourage it. It’s more likely she knows it won’t be able to compete with renewables and will naturally die out without banning it.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
62 points (70.7% liked)
News
23014 readers
6 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
there's also the possibility that, through further green initiatives and climate benchmarks, her administration can simply make fracking somehow prohibitively expensive or somehow impractical within certain performance restrictions without outright banning it.
On top of the likelihood that a ban would be very politically expensive, distracting, and watered down to pointlessness.
exactly. taking that stance now would create a huge industry backlash at a critical moment that wouldn't be offset by any real political gains from the left, but skirting her true intentions with oblique language allows her to approach the issue in a circumspect manner later.
A huge chunk of rural Pennsylvania is fracking jobs, and winning Pennsylvania involves making sure people stay employed.
Stupid motherfuckers want her to pull a Clinton and tell an entire section of the Pennsylvania working class, "tough titty go back to school" just before an election.
Or give them other job opportunities like in the renewable energy sector? They only want fracking because oil companies exploit those small towns to make them entirely dependent on the oil companies for employment
Literally what Clinton said she was going to do. Do it AFTER the election. This is to fucking important because if he wins it's game over on our democracy.
No, she didn't. She didn't promise people from Pennsylvania anything to help their situation. She didn't promise to bring jobs to those towns dependent on oil companies by shifting subsidizing to renewable energy companies in those towns. She needed to convince them that her policies would help improve their access to jobs and improve local development.
I'm not saying Harris needs to ban fracking, I'm saying it's a much more effective message to promote more opportunities for those towns by improving the subsidizing of renewable energy companies, public and/or private. Their main concern is jobs, which can easily be addressed.
In that respect, yeah. Not when it comes to capitulating to right wing framing on immigration and having more hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy. People want progressive policies that will improve their lives, she needs more of that
I think women's rights, making the child tax credit permanent, fixing housing, taxing the rich, supporting Ukraine, and continuing fixing the counties infrastructure is pretty progressive. But nah I guess it's not enough for you? Her program is working too. With a little wore time and money, she won't even need the Republican Border version. They can make their own
I am voting Harris. This isn't about me, people want more. Anti-genocide is a line for many.
Are you anti-immigration too? Immigrants aren't responsible for any crime wave, they're responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens. Neither are they responsible for bringing drugs like fentanyl over the border, that's done overwhelmingly by US citizens. Those are the points she's conceited to right wing framing on, both completely made up and not backed up by any evidence. The crisis at the border is our two-tier immigration system, our inhumane treatment of immigrants such as separating families, and rejecting of those seeking asylum
Are you anti-immigration too?
Not at all, but you can address the reasons so many people want to leave their country so quickly. I'd say a vast majority don't want to leave their countries at all, and most have their hand forced because of economic issues. Sure, there are many who rightfully leave because of the oppressive governments, but if we can use the influence of America to create economic opportunities to create jobs for them and make it so they dont have to undertake such a dangerous journey, we should do it.
Our foreign policy in the Americas is one if not the major reason for the increase in immigration. I agree, we should stop America's influence of Embargos and Regime Changes that have led to these kinds of conditions. I think we're in agreement there. Ending US influence would certainly help reduce the crisis, but we should also accept them all as legal immigrants that have a path for citizenship. We are a nation of immigrants after all.
My point is that the Democrats capitulating to the right wing narrative, which is completely made up, is bad politics and bad policy. The Pro-immigration stance Democratics have had for decades was very popular too. Sentiment has only changed once Democrats stopped providing a counter-narrative and instead ran with the right wing framing.
Ratchet effect continues
She's learning from Hillary. You don't tell people that you'll end their jobs and then expect them to vote for you. More than a few states gave economies based on fossil fuels I'm not sure why people expected her to say she's going to cut those off. We will expand green energy no matter what everything else is platitudes and pandering.
All the way up we’re pumping is currently a huge part of our economy: we have to get off that addiction in fairly short order but can’t just wish it away, like it or not.
So it comes down to the details. I’d be satisfied if she started restricting longer term activities like exploration and building pipelines. That’s the climate change of the future that needs to be stopped now. It also makes clear to those businesses that they need to plan for a different path into their future
Fracking means that the in United States is the chief petro state of the world, and can safely ignore OPEC.
This situation is going to continue in geopolitics at least into the 2040s regardless of what the policy on renewables is.
Wtf is she doing killing her chances after a great start.
I think she made the correct decision. Banning fossil fuels is not realistic.
