MotherJones: "How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World"
Tip of the iceberg, this is an example of why we need to aim higher.
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.
~snippet~
The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
= new reply since forum marked as read
All or most of our agencies were created to balance citizen's interests against business's interests:
The USPTO (patents), the FDA, the FCC, USDA, etc.: Safety and protections but also promotion of businesses.
This seems to have shifted lately in each of the agencies, and with Chevron and many other energy industries, the benefactors of increased business are rarely US citizens, so it bears scrutiny.
I'm guessing this trend started in earnest with Reagan, and got markedly worse with W (for instance, Cheney consulting with energy-industry folks, and basically having them write energy policy) . Uggh. 
The cherry-picked examples of statements and votes portray a progressive pro-environment candidate.
The missing data, votes, and actions on her part betray her pro-business screw-the-environment soul.
From her Super PAC's (ew, just threw up in my mouth at that) page on her pro-fossil fuel moves as SOS: Her OWN page!!!
Drill Baby Drill!
And that calculation includes the energy footprint of my food and water and material goods.
I also drive a Chevrolet Volt that only uses gasoline on trips far out of town.
How about you?
That was a fake story 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026729906
So one cannot be on the Grid but care about the environment? One cannot be on the Grid but have hopes to be Off the Grid someday? One cannot desire Solar Panels but cannot afford them due to the 1% (or more like the top 15% with Hill and Bill are a part of) consistent schemes to suppress wages to increase their wealth?
Sorry, but this question is stupid and frankly presents a fallacy of the false alternative where one cannot care about the environment or fracking unless they are "Off the Grid".
For the number of times and number of ways a DU member has tried to change the subject.
Natural Gas to get them of Petroleum!
Well do you live off the Grid?
Bulgaria, Putin!!!
Good grief.....
It's not difficult to understand.
Oh, and the Russians Are Coming!!!! And they're still 10 feet tall! 
Obama, HRC, and Jerry Brown your magic wand and they can solve the problems that way.
a price tag - and you know it). Since when are sovereign nations now thought of being too stupid to take care of themselves, and isn't it strange that the only ones the west 'helps' are those either with resources or those who can be used politically against one of those 'enemies' - Russia - 
you're so afraid of?
I was pissed that Hillary Clinton was receiving half a million dollars up here from city to city speaking of 'terror!!!!!'. We're quite able to tell ourselves what causes to be involved in.
But Harper does need all the help he can get before October, I guess.
Nothing more embarrassing than arguing with an expert about something you know next to nothing about.
Romania graphic, right out of my pocket:
NG is less filthy than coal, but the smart thing to transition toward is renewables and storage, not natural gas.
Hillary was doing favors for her Chevron friends.
It is so obvious.
Have you ever spoken to a Russian that has emigrated here? I have. Russia is not friend to the people.
No where did I say I support cluster bombs. I'm simply telling you it is unrealistic for us to not have them when 62 other countries do, and would use them against our allies in a heartbeat.
I don't live in the Pollyanna rose colored world you live in. I got over that when I was about 23 years old. That is when I moved to reality land.
No, she didn't.
While I don't have any specific examples of Clinton or her subordinates going against the POTUS in their official duties, it's clear that some of her actions there (or some of the actions of her family foundation) represent potential appearances of a conflict of interest.
Energy like so many other resources and assets is commonly used as a pawn in the game of global engagement.
And promotion of domestic commercial interests, like selling US made goods as a way to grow or maintain jobs, is a great use of the office.
However, promoting Chevron and hydraulic fracturing in a foreign country against the policies of that government and at least some of the citizens (if we are to believe the article is accurate) is not particularly encouraging.
In any event you're correct, Obama could have reigned her in if he didn't approve- I don't know, however, that this means he sent her out there to do all the things she did.
I happen to support most of his domestic energy policy.
I'm not sure about his energy policy these days.
