Hydrofracking causing a crack in the crown of the annointed one
Knowing I will get grief for this, I’m putting my head out there, on the platter for those on both sides to take a shot at, but this must be addressed…
Andrew Cuomo is not opposed to hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale. Seems the crowned prince was visiting Ithaca last week and ran into (shudder!) constituents who had done research and knew the issue:
“We need to have [Cuomo] speak very clearly, very succinctly about what he wants to do about this immense challenge to his administration, if he gets elected,” said Water Yang of the advocacy group Toxic Targeting.
At stake is drinking water, not only along the state’s southern border, but also millions of taps in New York City, where water is pumped in from upstate.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is opposed to drilling in the watershed, and earlier this year won tough state regulations there.
As for the rest of the state, Cuomo is waiting for a final review. But critics’ charge that based on a preliminary examination, the document promises to be woefully inadequate.
What’s more, after protesters came out by the dozens, some were peeved Cuomo didn’t take questions from the podium.
“I suspect that’s because he didn’t want an embarrassing political moment,” said one environmental activist.
I, for one, will work against anyone who has the audacity to suggest that money trumps environment. You can’t drink money. Having a big D next to your name on the ballot no longer holds sway with me. I’m beginning to believe that there is little difference between the big D and the big R.
What would you ask Andy?
Related posts:
Here’s what politicians have realized: because there is little or no danger of primaries, if they adopt a position from the “other side”, it can only benefit them.
So, if a Democrat supports a war or a bank bailout without appropriate oversight of the banks or an inappropriate attack on the Constitution or a healthcare plan without a public option or hydrofracking, their Republican opponents in the general won’t attack them on it as a campaign issue. In essence, that’s the principle of “triangulation” from the Clinton administration. Likewise, State spending increased more under Pataki, the Republican, because he never said “no” to the Democratic constituencies– that way, he gained their support (or at least acquiescence) in the general.
Maybe they risk pushing down turnout from their side. But given our effective no-primary conditions, they don’t risk losing their base all together. They figure that what they stand to gain from the other side of the aisle is greater than what they lose from their own.
Is anyone else as tired of this disengenuous bullshit as I am? Politicians have the same access to information that we do and I’m assuming they can read, yet they hide behind vague statements so they don’t piss anyone off. If I poison my neighbor I go to jail, but the gas industry gets a pass? How can we let an attorney general off the hook, when his job is to protect the people of NY State. Can he be trusted as Governor? WTF!
“I’m beginning to believe that there is little difference between the big D and the big R.”
That says it all. You should consider becoming a small “l”.
A difference in general philosopy, but a questionable difference in standard operating procedure.
Just this this once, I agree with the wingnut…consider independence or an alternative party.
Who is the candidate on the Independent line for Governor?
I want Cuomo to show me where fracking has been done safely. He loves to act as if this all new and still requiring some study. Ask people in OH and PA if this can be done safely. About the only thing that seems to have changed is the degree of danger—no longer using benzene as a fracking chemical while continuing to use diesel fuel or other chemicals, if spilled on a road, would require a hazmat team to clean up.
There’s a simple question the people of NY need to ask themselves–DO YOU WANT TO GAMBLE what is left of our precious land, water and air?
Do fishing enthusiasts want to see more dead streams? Are we that desperate for money and energy that we would accept poisoning our land and ourselves?
We talk about leaving debt to our children…I would rather spend on truly clean energy sources and leave our children debt instead of leaving them debt-free in a dead, brown landscape.
Oil is safe until you consider the pollution created by burning it or until Exxon Valdez or deep sea drilling disasters happen.
Of course nuclear energy is safe and super clean unless you consider the long-term storage problems and half-life issues or until a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island occur.
Coal is safe unless you are forced to think about mining disasters and trapped coal minors, black lung and soot pouring out of smoke stacks.
I thought we had arrived at a place where only truly clean and truly renewable energy sources would be considered. I thought just maybe Al Gore ushered in a new era. I thought maybe we learned something when Melissa Ethridge sang “I Need To Wake Up”.
Why, when given the option of solar energy and wind power, do we put so much thought into drilling holes in our beautiful land, pumping in hazardous chemicals to force hidden natural gas out. How could this option ever seem good or even merely acceptable.
Obama promised the hope of a different kind of energy future. He promised new jobs based on green energy. Then he said more offshore oil drilling was part of our energy future. If we allow Obama to have it both ways, the status quo will win….simply because it is somewhat cheaper.
If hydrofracking ever takes place here, we will have totally lost of the battle. The battle being progress and moving the world forward to a better, safer, cleaner place. If we continue to accept the backsliding in the name of the almighty dollar, then we get the dirty and destroyed world we deserve. Fortunately, I think I deserve better and will bitch and complain until I see something better.