So...literally one of the worst parts of the debate the other night was the fracking question. Fetterman expressed opposition to fracking as late as 2018, but in 2022 came out for it. He was asked to reconcile his two positions. And then..his brain BSODed. Literally. He said something along the lines of "I support fracking, I dont support fracking, I support fracking." *sigh...* Anyway, as someone who has kind of had similar conflicts over the fracking question, let me explain why I can see where he's coming from and explain it. It should be noted this opinion is my own, NOT fetterman's, but I do believe my answer can likely give insight into Fetterman's mindset.
Fracking is one of those questions on the left that's....divisive. And with those who kind of thread the line between "liberal" and "leftist" in various ways, I myself have felt conflicted with it over the years. Let's start with the anti position. Ever see the documentary gasland? What about split estate? Fracking SUCKS. You're injecting chemicals into the ground to fracture it to get natural gas out. And it has widespread environmental consequences. It literally poisons the ground water and causes MASSIVE health issues to people exposed to it. And it can also cause earthquakes. Fun!
Really, out fossil fuel obsession is KILLING US. LITERALLY. THis stuff is poison when it comes in contact with people, and it's also throwing CO2 into the atmosphere slowly killing us all. We NEED to get off of this crap. NOW. We needed to 40 years ago. But after Carter a certain republican president came in and set the narrative that fossil fuels good, green energy bad, causing us to kick the can down the road for 40 years. Really. We should be striving as much as possible go get away from fossil fuels. It's not just an environmental issue, it's a national security issue too. Reliance on fossil fuels for all we do is biting us in the butt, and allowing us to enable the worst impulses of countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, who we rely on for the stuff. Energy independence is in our national security interests, and the best way to guarantee that is with renewables. Solar, wind, nuclear. The big three. We shouldn't frack...if we can help it. We shouldnt be looking more into oil exploration and natural gas. That stuff is the past. Renewables are the future.
HOWEVER, and this is where I go into the more pro fracking stance. Yes, energy independence is important, and a national security issue. And this year has been a clusterfudge in this sense. Russia invading Ukraine was a double whammy to the global economy in this sense. Not only did it knock out Ukraine's ability to power much of the world with its oil and natural gas, but sanctioning Russia also cut off supplies. Much of the world, especially much of Europe, depended on Russia and Ukraine for natural gas and oil. And honestly, it can and has been argued that the reason why Putin invaded was over...oil and natural gas. That's why they took Crimea and that's why they want to whittle Ukraine's access to the coasts. And this war has MESSED UP the global economy. Instead of putting Biden on a sticker saying "I did that", they should be adding putin. Because the shift away from Russia/Ukraine has thrown Europe into a state of jeopardy. Now Germany is freaking out trying to scramble a plan to get through the winter without relying on Russia, which it was HEAVILY dependent on. Germany is an interesting case in general. They tried really hard to go green and it's biting them in the butt right now. They even wanted to shut down their nuclear plants this year, but that got put off because HEY GUESS WHAT WE NEED THOSE TO POWER THINGS. Modern society requires ENERGY. Homes require energy, businesses require energy. Without energy society grinds to a halt and people will quite literally die. Things will get stone age pretty quick without energy resources.
And let's be honest, the democrats aren't in much of a position to stand on principle right now. Much of that 9% inflation is driven by energy prices. Gasoline is up 51%. Natural gas 28%. And more expensive energy means more expensive everything because our global logistics network requires so much energy to function. How can you get food to the stores without using gasoline? Good luck with that. And if you haven't noticed, democrats are getting DESTROYED on this issue. Inflation is peoples' #1 motivator in voting, and that's going to encourage conservative outcomes. If fetterman wants to win, he can't afford to be against fracking. Americans think about their pocketbooks first. As Andrew Yang said, you need to get the economic boot off of peoples' throats if you want to get them to care about other stuff. People NEED ANSWERS to what the democrats' strategy with inflation is. And the republicans are KILLING US on this issue, because they're going on about our lack of energy independence and kissing up to Saudi Arabia, who is using the opportunity to stab us in the back, like they did in the 1970s with Carter. Also, people worry about jobs, and without a game plan that doesn't involve jobs, like a UBI (even then, a $15k UBI won't replace a $70k fracking job), and Fetterman can't afford to be against anything that would destroy peoples livelihoods. That's the problem with having an economy so reliant on WORK. We end up with all kinds of perverse incentives to keep around dirty and outdated work that otherwise shouldnt be done because we worry about how it affects jobs. Jobs jobs jobs. That's all Americans care about. It's the economy stupid, as Bill Clinton would say.
You can tell there is a huge part of me that wants to just say F fracking, get rid of it, get off of fossil fuels once and for all. And stop pushing for dirty and dangerous jobs that destroy the environment. But my idealism is tempered with a relatively conservative sense of pragmatism at times. And this is a case in which the democrats must yield. For the next decade at least, we need to rely on fossil fuels whether we like it or not. And Americans are accustomed to a cheap and plentiful supply of energy and will quickly revolt when hiccups happen. Again, the last time this crap happened, Carter was in charge, and guess what, the democrats got DESTROYED in 1980 SO HARD that it basically completed a party realignment and ensured conservative ideological supremacy for 30+ years. We're STILL arguably living in the shadow of that. And if the left isn't careful, it will happen again. This is one issue the left MUST yield on, if only temporarily. We can talk about our future energy security, reliance on clean energy, nuclear, electric cars, etc. down the line. We need to take active steps toward that stuff. But, we're likely not gonna be in a position, even if we do all of the right things now, to be able to stop fracking and oil exploration until some time in the 2030s. So....the proper left wing strategy would be to drill and frack and do whatever we need to do now as a lesser evil, and in the next decade hopefully get to a position where we don't have to any more. But democrats NEED to stand for energy security in the short to medium term, even if that involves dirty fuels. We can't afford to be purists on this issue if it's gonna cause us to lose elections and implode and make the public lose confidence in our ideology. We already saw what happened last time the left was in this position. If it happens again, well, if we don't come back around to addressing this stuff until the 2060s, we're REALLY gonna be screwed.
And that's my stance on stuff. My theory of progress is that we need to take active steps toward the world we want, but in the mean time, we do need to make compromises. It's basically the same stance I take on the issue of work. Sure I'd love for us to all quit our jobs and not have to work and live on UBI, but we do need SOME work done, and some jobs. We can question jobism and the protestant work ethic and being for reducing the amount of work we do, but ultimately, it's a balancing act, and if we go too far and too fast, well, our ideas are gonna backfire and the opposite side is going to gain ideological ground. It's the same thing here. We need to take care of our needs first. Idealism comes later. If we can't secure our ideals while sustainably maintaining our living standards, the system is going to go into a death spiral and the public will turn against us. That's my approach to jobs and work, and that's my approach to energy and the environment too. And I assume that's something along the lines of what Fetterman was going for.
No comments:
Post a Comment